Speculation with Spoilers: We're all Seers Now

[duckyone]

No palm licking required.

 

The finale has a tag line of "One Must Die" so I'm going to say the obvious choice is King Horik. Michael HIrst stated that season 3 will have them raiding Paris and since Ragnar doesn't forgive any attacks on his family, they won't still be allies. Also Donal Logue has accepted a full time role on Law & Order: SVU.

 

I also have a fear that it might be Floki because Ragnar's core group is due for a shake up but I have my fingers in my ears going LA LA LA.

 

I'm also very hopeful that we haven't seen the last of King Ecbert because Linus Roache gave an interview where he says he had to keep the long hair and beard when he guest starred in Blacklist because of Vikings. I've fallen in love with his character, he plays it so well.

 

 

[heyerchick]

As long as it isn't Athelstan. He's my gateway drug for this show.

[duckyone]

Georeg Blagden did post an Instagram a few days ago where you can clearly see he's growing back Athelstan's man-beard so I think he's safe for now.

[jnymph]

I'm good with it being Horik.  He's a douche.

Just don't touch the hotness that is Athelstan.

[David T. Cole]

SVU? I thought it was Gotham? Busy dude!

[duckyone]

Well technically SVU hasn't been renewed yet so maybe he's keeping all his options open. The man makes Benedict Cumberbatch seem lazy. Either way, I think Horik is toast.

[SingleMaltBlonde]

I need Donal Logue to die I Vikings because I love him, especially on Terriers, and him as Horik is ruining that.

[heyerchick]

Not a specific spoiler but: IFTN: ‘Vikings’ Seeks €25m Funding

Accountancy firm Mazars and Clancy & Associates has been hired to raise €25m in Section 481 financing for the third series of ‘Vikikngs’, the History Channel’s hit drama which recently aired its first series on RTÉ Two. The scheme is expected to raise the biggest Section 481 funding for 2014.
 

Through S.481, high-income tax-paying investors can earn returns of up to 20% within three months, thus making it a popular investment value. Individuals can put in up to €50,000. The producers of ‘Vikings’, which includes Shaw Media, Take 5 and Octagon films, would get an estimated benefit of €5.6m, courtesy of the exchequer. 80% of a project’s Irish production budget can be financed through the scheme.

 

[Babalooie]

Interesting interview and video from Gustaf Skarsgard.  Looks like someone will go on a permanent vacation at the hands of Floki.

 

http://tvline.com/2014/04/30/vikings-season-2-finale-preview-gustaf-skarsgard-floki-versus-ragnar/

Edited April 30, 2014 by Babalooie

[bunnyblue]

 

Looks like someone will go on a permanent vacation at the hands of Floki.

 

I hope it's Horik. I fear it will be Athelstan. If it is our beloved priest, I hope Floki is the next one be Blood Eagled.

[heyerchick]

I don't think I'd want to watch the show without Athelstan, to be honest. 

[justawatcher]

I'm thinking it might be Aslaug. She's popped out the required sons, time for her to go. Horik sends Floki and his family on a boat to Iceland (real history says Floki settled Iceland).

[Expat]

I don't think I'd want to watch the show without Athelstan, to be honest. 

 

Neither would I. He's my absolute fave.

[Babalooie]

I'm so excited!  Floki the Trickster is up to GOOD, I think.  FB has a video of him giving Rollo magic mushrooms after sending Siggy off to get some sleep.  Hope it's for pain relief and Siggy is about to be offed.  It wouldn't load off of FB, so go see.

Edited May 1, 2014 by Babalooie

[duckyone]

With Gustaf Skarsgard giving an interview where he says someone will die at Floki's hand, I got the feeling we haven't considered that it might just might be Floki. With as tormented as he's been this series, I don't think suicide would be out of the question.

 

ETA: I have never been so happy to be so wrong.

Edited May 2, 2014 by duckyone

[AzureOwl]

This part of an interview with Michael Hirst has me wondering:

 

You mentioned earlier that we’re time jumping again when we come back, so does that mean we can expect to see new locations next season?
We’re in a new place, because Ragnar is a king now. Halfway through season three, we’re going to attack Paris — there’s a famous Vikings attack on the city of Paris. And they attacked with 120 ships. So this new season, we go from eight ships to 120 ships. You have to go up in scale. One of the wonderful things about the show is how it truthfully began with small undertakings, like one ship traveling, trying to find England. In the second season, there are bigger attacks on England, and then season three, halfway through, we’ll be with 120 ships attacking Paris. So we have this new scale, we have Ragnar as a king with everything that entails, in terms of responsibility and his own wishes and desires. And so for me, it’s another great wonderful challenge, because the two main things in Vikings which run parallel are the visceral element of it, and the battle of politics. And the other side of it is the personal side and the family side. And Ragnar being a family man, and his wife and ex-wife being inextricably linked. And all those things go on again side-by-side.

 

How are they going to do the Viking sack of Paris without doing a time skip? At the point that season 2 ended, Charlemagne is still very much alive. And the only reason that raid was successful was because the the Frankish Kingdom was a divided mess after his death.

[green]

AzureOwl, I assume the time jump will make it be after Charlemagne's death.  But since Rollo was already teleported back to the year 793 AD when the series began and was magically made Ragnar's brother, I assume that the time jumping and French history line will get played a little loose too.

 

I'm not sure which year we are suppose to be at now but did they time-skip 5 or 7 years early this past season?  Then it seemed a few more years went by as Snake-Eye and Boneless were born and several raids and such took place.  So maybe it is at least 804 or as late as say 809 now?

 

Wikipedia says Charlemagne died in January 2014.  So it shouldn't be too much of a jump historically speaking to get him out of the picture.  It also says that:  "Louis the Pious (778 – 20 June 840), also called the Fair, and the Debonaire, (Me: pious and debonaire? hah) was the King of Aquitaine from 781. He was also King of the Franks and co-Emperor (as Louis I) with his father, Charlemagne, from 813." 

 

So even though it says things don't start falling apart big time for the Franks until the 830's when Louis was deposed for a few years and totally went wonky after Louis' death and the big Viking raid didn't take place until 845 ... well who votes to make it all happen earlier so Ragnar can come along for it?  I bet Michael Hirst did much to the glee of the History Channel and all the fans of the show. 

 

And they can do it by simply having the Franks fall to pieces upon the death of Charlemagne using news of that death as the triggering for the great raid on Paris.  You just have to skip over the reign of Louis the Debonaire ... err, Pious or Fair or whatever and go straight to the Franks losing it a few decades earlier.  (Sorry, Louis ... we hardly knew ye).

Edited May 4, 2014 by green

[Ohwell]

Wikipedia says Charlemagne died in January 2014.

 

Now that's what I call a time jump! : )

[ElizaD]

Any thoughts on the season preview?

 

Though it looks like Athelstan is doomed (that shot of him was like a post-death goodbye vision), I don't think Aslaug's "kill the Christian" refers to him. Maybe it's the wanderer? He's the only new character I've read about who will be meeting Aslaug/Siggy/Helga. Ecbert's son will attack the farmers so he'd be villainous enough to kill Athelstan for catching his wife's eye, but historically he'll outlive Ecbert and Ragnar would surely want revenge for Athelstan's death.

 

Floki's talk about the gods punishing him makes me worried that something might happen to Helga too.

 

Does Lagertha ask for Ragnar's help after Kalf betrays her?

[Ohwell]

I've got a bad feeling that Lagertha might get killed.  I'm afraid she might take a break from farming and follow Ragnar into battle again.  I think Aslaug might die, too, but I don't care about her.  Also, as much as I love Athelstan, I wouldn't be surprised or gutted if he died because I think I've been preparing myself for his death all along.  Torstein, too. *sniff*

[bunnyblue]

Any thoughts on the season preview?

 

Though it looks like Athelstan is doomed (that shot of him was like a post-death goodbye vision), I don't think Aslaug's "kill the Christian" refers to him. Maybe it's the wanderer? He's the only new character I've read about who will be meeting Aslaug/Siggy/Helga. Ecbert's son will attack the farmers so he'd be villainous enough to kill Athelstan for catching his wife's eye, but historically he'll outlive Ecbert and Ragnar would surely want revenge for Athelstan's death.

 

I'm hoping that the preview is just a fakeout with regards to Athelstan. They can't possibly spoil his death so blatantly, right?! I've been expecting his death since season 1, and I would be crushed if they finally go through with it. I seem to recall reading last summer that George Blagden took time off during the filming of S3 to go shoot a movie. I worry that they used that as an excuse to kill Athelstan. :(

 

Also in an earlier preview, an upset Ragnar yells at Athelstan "you can not leave me". I'm getting an awful feeling about my favorite priest.

 

Anyone know who plays the Wanderer? He looks familiar but I can't place him.

 

I also noticed in the preview that King Horik's son is marching/fighting alongside Lagertha in some scenes. I guess Ragnar sent him off to Lagertha after the S2 finale. A much better fate than I was expecting for the kid.

[magdalene]

I think this is the season when Siggy will die. And I wouldn't bet on Porunn surviving the season either. I am kind of conflicted about Athelstan's chances - on the one hand the show needs him as a translator and go-between between the factions, on the other right from the start the character screamed "martyr death" to me.

 

I would guess that all the "historical" characters are safe for the time being. I am assuming Rollo  is "the" Rollo even though the time line is kind of screwy,  and Ragnar won't meet his end in the snake pit until his younger sons are all grown up.  All his sons, including the oldest Bjorn, and the disabled one, Ivar, become famous Viking warriors in their own right.

 

The outlook is kind of foggy for Lagertha though - I would hope the producers are smart enough to not kill off their most popular character, but I can't be sure about that. 

[Babalooie]

Yes, don't worry about Baby Ivar.  He went on to be a great warrior and one of my Great-Great Grandpas.  For real.  I traced back to them and farther on ancestry.com.  It's fascinating to watch the series knowing that.

[Danez]

Hi, I'm new to the Vikings and love the show. I watched the first two seasons and have just caught up to season 3.

Now then I have a theory, which may contain spoilers or is just a bunch of twaddle, you chose.

I see a lot hope Athelston won't be killed and continue on, so do I. Here is the reason I don't think it will end in tears any time soon for Athelston.

Im not an historian but looking at the way the show is panning out set these questions for me.

The real Athelston apparently was the king of Wessex, the keeper of relics etc and some talk of his mother being the conqubine of his father, (funny enough the word conqubine has just ben mentioned in an episode of vikings) it also noted that around Athelstons reign the scriptures were better wrote out than before or after his reign, looks he was well schooled.

So how does it fit with Athelston the monk in Vikings? Pretty good actually. just looking above he has most of these attributes. Yes he is a monk, not a king but could he have not been brought up in Lindesfarne due to his fathers extra marital affairs and conqubine mother? Why did the king prefer Athelston to his sons as the keeper of relics? BTW a kings crown taken from the mercian king in an episode is similar to the one the real Athelston wore while at Chester-le-st, some five miles from my home :)

So my spoiler is getting there.. So don't read further if you have a lucid mind..

.

.

.

What I propose is that the reason the makers have not made Athelston as a Wessex prince is that he would not have the bond with Ragnar or the viewers, now we have a close bond with the character, so any deviation will throw things up in the air.

The reason I think this bond is being made is simply at some point in the series Athelston will become King of England and he and Ragnar will eventually go head to head at the Battle of Brunanburh.

Of course, it could be a load of rubbish I'm thinking.

Edited March 8, 2015 by Danez

[green]

Interesting theory.  But doesn't Aethelwulf historically succeed his father as king of Wessex?  He is being played up as the English fly in the ointment to peace between the two peoples/religions like he is Floki's counterpart.  Doubt they would skip him after this set-up.

 

I just looked it up on wikipedia and there is a Athelstan but he doesn't show up until about a hundred years and several kings later after Ecbert.  Ready for this?  After Ecbert it goes Aethelwulf, Aethelbald, Aethelbert, Aethelred, the famous Alfred the Great, Edward the Elder, Aelfweard, then Athelstan.  Who knew Aethel-whatever was such a popular boys name.

 

But I like your idea of having Athelstan associated with the Wessex royals.  Maybe he (cough) leaves his "seed" behind to be nurtured down the years?  Why else is Judith being brought into the drama otherwise?  Maybe that child succeeds Athelwulf directly skipping all the other endless Aethels.

 

They do play loose with the timeline choosing the more interesting characters to show.  Ecbert (referred to on wikipedia as Egbert) is about a 30 year leap into the future from Ragnar''s timeline.  So your guess is as good as mine what they are up to. 

 

But I really doubt he (our Athelstan) would fight Ragnar.  Wasn't it King Aella of Northumbria who is suppose to have done in Ragnar in the end?  The snake pit thing.  Then Bjorn and his younger half-brothers, now grown up, show Aella the blood eagle up close and in person.  I mean they showed King Aella throwing one of his lieutenants down into the snake pit in Season 1 was it?  I thought that was a set-up ... or maybe they just wanted to give Aella a chance to use his snake pit on someone and will save a more heroic death for Ragnar eventually.  Historical fiction, hard to tell what is up with it at times.

 

But interesting ideas of yours.  Hadn't really thought about it all much until your post.  Now all sorts of possibilities are popping up in my mind.  Thanks ... I think.  :-)

Edited March 8, 2015 by green

[Danez]

Thanks for your full reply green. Yes I could be seeing shapes in a cloud and no doubt the history is all over the place but for me the similarities with the two Athalstans are just a little too similar, wether it pans out my way or not. I think the makers of the show have based at least some of our Athalstan on the real king.

Can you imagine the face off on an English battlefield with Ragnar and Athelston, once friends and unlikely opponents, now uneasy bitter enemies, each to their own gods.

Edited March 9, 2015 by Danez

[green]

Only trouble is that this Athelstan is more Team Norse Gods.  Maybe a bastard son would be more Team Christ God (tm Floki).

 

I'm sure Athelstan has been inspired by several historical characters and dead to rights Hirst must have chosen his name based on that king and some of his characteristics.  I'm totally with you there.

 

But he also used a couple of monks who had been captured by Vikings who were actually crucified like this character when they returned to England.  Something 99.99% of Christians down the centuries would consider sacrilegious too but apparently it happened at least twice for real.  In small villages off the beaten track which might explain the weird behavior of the peasants.

 

And don't know this Athelstan's fate but I don't ever see him choosing a side, just tilting one way or the other and more to Ragnar.  He seems a character written to "bridge" the two cultures for the viewers.  The Everyman trope as well since viewers could more identify with someone coming from a standard old western culture and slowly getting immersed into the Viking one.

 

Hirst seems to use characters to represent the points of view of the day.  Just like Floki and Aethewulf were created or shaped by him to have zero interest in each other's cultures and hate them outright.  And Ragnar and Ecbert are shown trying to find common ground whilst staying on their own teams.

 

So I honestly can't see Ragnar vs Athelstan down the line.  It would kind of destroy the whole construct Hirst has made. 

 

I can see Floki leaving Ragnar one day.  We know the one historical Floki I can find in wikipedia (lived maybe a generation or so in the future but, wonky timelines) sailed off with his family to actually navigate to Iceland as opposed to a handful of earlier Vikings who just accidentally stumbled upon it when blown off course etc. and brought back tales of a land of fire and ice somewhere out in the western ocean.  Thus he receives credit as being one of the greatest Viking navigators of all time and the first family to settle in Iceland.  Easy to see why Hirst latched on to him and converted him to a ship builder.  He might well use that factoid to have Floki leave Ragnar at the end of their storyline to sail off to the west with Frodo ... err ... to seek a pure, untainted Norse land free of alien gods.

Edited March 9, 2015 by green

[Lugal]

I find it interesting that Princess Judith seems to be hung up on Athelstan.  Historically Athelwulf and his wife's first child was a son named Athelstan, but he never became king.

 

Æthel is a common element in Old English names, and means "noble" so I could guess Athelstan "Noble Stone" would have been a relatively common Old English name.

 

 

I can see Floki leaving Ragnar one day.  We know the one historical Floki I can find in wikipedia (lived maybe a generation or so in the future but, wonky timelines) sailed off with his family to actually navigate to Iceland as opposed to a handful of earlier Vikings who just accidentally stumbled upon it when blown off course etc. and brought back tales of a land of fire and ice somewhere out in the western ocean.  Thus he receives credit as being one of the greatest Viking navigators of all time and the first family to settle in Iceland.  Easy to see why Hirst latched on to him and converted him to a ship builder.  He might well use that factoid to have Floki leave Ragnar at the end of their storyline to sail off to the west with Frodo ... err ... to seek a pure, untainted Norse land free of alien gods.

It's been my theory all along that Floki ends up being Hrafn-Floki who goes to Iceland.

[Ohwell]

I hope Floki goes to Iceland soon.

[green]

I hope Floki goes to Iceland soon.

 

Okay, that was funny.

[Danez]

I see your point about Judith, perhaps the seed will be sown for a future Athalstan, time will tell.

I see Loki as the die hard Viking, even more so than Ragnar, whether Ragnar dabbles in Christianity as an understanding of his enemy or curiosity its obvious Loki would never give Christians the time of day. I love is impish joker looks.

[magdalene]

When this show started in the first season I was really upset to learn what Ragnar's ultimate fate would probably be. But as things have developed over the seasons I am okay with the snake pit now.

[Ohwell]

I am not ok with the snake pit because I like Ragnar.  However, if the show does stick with the history of Aella and the snake pit, I wouldn't have a problem with it.  Much as I like Ragnar and I'd miss him, I think the show could continue with Rollo and Bjorn and their exploits, and I would still find it enjoyable.  Just make sure Floki goes to Iceland. 

[Amerilla]

This may be more of an item for the media thread, but I saw a story this morning that the show has put out a call for more than 8,000 extras for the fourth season, which will begin filming in Ireland in April. So it sounds like the story is going to become much larger as this season goes on.

[Babalooie]

I am assuming that Rollo is the bear and he will be present at the wedding of a princess because he will be marrying a Norman princess. 

[jsonmaui]

Maybe Princess (Queen) Aslaug?

[ElizaD]

Hirst interview:

 

What are the implications for Floki now that he has committed this murder?

Floki's a guy who is always filled with divisions. He argues about not regretting what he has done because he believes in it—yet he does love Ragnar. He knows the effect of it on him. So he's a divided character. It does have huge consequences further down the line. Wait until you see Episode 10.

 

Will we see more of Judith and the child?

Yes, we will see more of Judith, more of Ecbert, more of Wessex. In the end, Ragnar's story circles back around to Wessex. Jennie Jacques, she's just a great actress. I want to keep them very present, very much alive.

So can you hint about where Alfred's story goes? For those of us who, ahem, may not be so up on our British history?

What actually happened, will happen. As a young boy of about four, Alfred, accompanied by a couple of people, was sent off on the pilgrimage route to Rome, which was one of the most dangerous routes in the world. He went to meet the Pope. He was blessed by the Pope, so his sense of him being a very important person at the age of four was recognized in Rome. What a great story that is. I can't wait. We're showing Paris in the later half of Season 3 and at some point we'll be in Rome.

So we are going to Rome in Season 4?

Yes.

 

Bjorn's lover Porunn (Gaia Weiss) also gives birth—to a daughter. They name the child Siggy. Will this child bring changes beyond what you might expect from any new bundle of joy?

Oh I can't tell you. No. That's a big question too. Not necessarily how the child affects the community, but it affects the parents. It affects them in a very powerful way.

 

Now that Athelstan is gone, who's the sympathetic voice of Christianity on the show now? Is it Judith?

Well…there's a new character who is going to appear in Season 4 who will do that.

[green]

^  Cool.  Paris this season, Rome the next.  The Grand Tour. 

 

And maybe the biggest news is that, "Yes, we will see more of Judith, more of Ecbert, more of Wessex. In the end, Ragnar's story circles back around to Wessex."  Means Ragnar will still be around in Season 4, hurrah!  Also, Ecbert.

 

So if Alfred goes to Rome when 4 we will at least get that time jump.  The oldest of Bjorn's half brothers would be almost reaching his early teens by then maybe and that means he will soon be getting his arm bracelet at the very least as the rest of Ragnar's bear-rug rats slowly start to grow up.

 

A new "good" Christian character.  Cool too.  Wonder who else gets added next year.

[Haleth]

That sounds wonderful.  I was going to say, regarding Ragnar's fate, that he wasn't killed until the boys were pretty much grown up, right?  At least teenagers?  So I thought he was safe in the storyline for some time.  But if the writers keep doing these time jumps... I can't imagine the show without Ragnar/Fimmel.  Much as I adore some of the other characters the show is really Ragnar-centric.  I hope he sticks around until the end of the last season.

[Ohwell]

Since Hirst is playing around with some of the history anyway, I'd like to see Ragnar stick around until the end of the series.  (Historians aren't even sure that Ragnar ever existed, correct?)  I just don't want to watch this show all these seasons, only to wind up with Ragnar in Aella's snake pit. 

[magdalene]

The younger boys were all grown men when Ragnar met his fate in the snake pit so unless the show takes a really big time jump Ragnar should be around for a good while yet.

[Ohwell]

Ahhh, ok, thanks for that info on Ragnar. 

[ElizaD]

With Alfred and now baby Magnus (whether he is Ragnar's son or not), it seems they have plans for the second generation in England too. If they want to show tiny Alfred going to Rome that might mean there won't be a time jump when season 4 starts, but maybe they'll handle it like in season 2 when they had the jump after the very early departure of Lagertha and original Bjorn.

 

Rather like the story of Athelstan's choice between Christianity and paganism, the current state of things feels like it's coming to a natural end. Siggy and Athelstan are dead, I don't think things are looking good for Helga, Floki might end up paying for Athelstan's murder with his life, Aslaug/Ragnar and Porunn/Bjorn might be heading for breakups. The next generation will be Ragnar's sons, Siggy #2, Angrboda (Floki's daughter), Alfred, Magnus, possibly Rollo's children if he marries the French princess. They could still have them as children in season 4 and then do the time jump in 5 if the show continues to get renewed, but IMO this feels like the right time for a major shakeup.

[RiddleyWalker]

With Alfred and now baby Magnus (whether he is Ragnar's son or not), it seems they have plans for the second generation in England too. If they want to show tiny Alfred going to Rome that might mean there won't be a time jump when season 4 starts, but maybe they'll handle it like in season 2 when they had the jump after the very early departure of Lagertha and original Bjorn.

 

Rather like the story of Athelstan's choice between Christianity and paganism, the current state of things feels like it's coming to a natural end. Siggy and Athelstan are dead, I don't think things are looking good for Helga, Floki might end up paying for Athelstan's murder with his life, Aslaug/Ragnar and Porunn/Bjorn might be heading for breakups. The next generation will be Ragnar's sons, Siggy #2, Angrboda (Floki's daughter), Alfred, Magnus, possibly Rollo's children if he marries the French princess. They could still have them as children in season 4 and then do the time jump in 5 if the show continues to get renewed, but IMO this feels like the right time for a major shakeup.

I think you're right about a major shakeup coming. It has to, of course, at some point, but I'm not sure when. I think there will be lots of action around Paris for awhile and then I expect plenty of Rollo and his exploits in Normandy with Gisela etc. Ragnar and Lagertha also need to make Ecgbert pay for the massacre of the settlement in Wessex. 

 

After that, though, it may be the right point for a time jump. I'm worried, though, about whether there will be anyone in the next generation with the charisma Travis Fimmel has brought to the role of Ragnar. Killing off Ragnar would change the whole dynamic of the show and is certainly risky from the show's point of view. Maybe they can skip the snake-pit thing and keep Ragnar around as an advisor to his sons for awhile as the next generation takes the lead? Argghh! Vikings without Ragnar is hard to imagine.

[SingleMaltBlonde]

I am wondering how many seasons we are looking at?  I keep comparing to Henry VIII in the Tudors....Henry's arc is somewhat similar...he ages and gets darker...it ended with his death and I wonder if this ends with Ragnar?  He seems to be the center of everything and I don't see going on without him.

Edited April 3, 2015 by SingleMaltBlonde

[RiddleyWalker]

I am wondering how many seasons we are looking at?  I keep comparing to Henry VIII in the Todors....Henry's arc is somewhat similar...he ages and gets darker...it ended with his death and I wonder if this ends with Ragnar?  He seems to be the center of everything and I don't see going on without him.

I wonder, too. I know Hirst has spoken of continuing the show if possible-- to even include the Vikings coming to the New World and all that--but I can't see them keeping Ragnar around for those exploits no matter how much they stretch the history. I have a hard time imagining the show continuing without Ragnar but maybe they can find someone with the charisma and ability to carry the show when he's gone. 

Edited April 3, 2015 by RiddleyWalker

[Cricketoo]

I always thought that Athel, or Ethel, was a royal prefix.  A male of the royal line is an atheling.  I was surprised that no one explained why Athelstan had a royal name, unless he was the illegitimate son of a royal house.  With Egbert so willing to accept Alfred into the line of succession, wouldn't it fit if Athelstan was actually Egbert's son?  One he obviously prefers to the legitimate Ethelwulf?  I think that would be an interesting twist.  

[green]

Hirst said we will see a 4 year old Alfred go on pilgrimage to Rome next season so there will be at least a four year jump somewhere next year.  Which kind of implies there shouldn't be any time jump the last three episodes of this season.

 

Also Hirst had no idea how popular this series would become for a cable series.  A TV series has so many outside factors to deal with.  You can draw any story arc you want in the conception phase but networks, ratings, renewals etc will change matters along the way.  I mean Siggy wasn't meant to be killed off or whatever this soon as he mentioned.  The actor felt she had to withdraw for personal reasons. 

 

Conversely no one probably saw how totally pivotal Travis Fimmel would become to the show.  So I could see them extending Ragnar longer than originally intended though I can't see him surviving into a 6th season should (hopefully) there be one.  Or rather survive more than a few episodes to help bring back the audience to start the season with and help lead into a transfer point.

 

Also who the hell is Magnus?  Not Queen Crazy's kid but since the name implies a sorcerer or druid type, will he continue into the show and become somewhat of a Merlin figure?  Wasn't Mercia located in modern day Wales where Merlin was said to come from?  Also Mercia would have the largest population left of Celtic survivors in England at this point I imagine.  I draw the line at any Arthur bits but a Merlin-like figure minus the Arthur legend might be interesting.  And legendary figures can be plucked so easily into Hirst's timeline no doubt. 

Edited April 4, 2015 by green

[RiddleyWalker]

 

Conversely no one probably saw how totally pivotal Travis Fimmel would become to the show.  So I could see them extending Ragnar longer than originally intended though I can't see him surviving into a 6th season should (hopefully) there be one.  Or rather survive more than a few episodes to help bring back the audience to start the season with and help lead into a transfer point.

 

I was looking at the "TV Tropes" website the other day and came across the entry for "Magnificent Bastard" here:http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MagnificentBastard   Here's an excerpt:

 

"So what makes a character a Magnificent Bastard? Let's break it down:

They are brilliant and utterly devious. Call it genius, call it virtual omniscience, but they always seem to know what everyone else is planning at any given moment and makes them play right into his hands, and exactly how to arrange the game so they win even when they have been defeated.

They are a smooth operator. They always have a backup strategy and never lose their cool. Even if on the remote chance something happens that wasn't in his plans, you'd never know it from his actions. Didn't See That Coming doesn't derail him; if his plans are foiled, he can always improvise.

They have a goal, they're not going to stop until they've completed it, whatever it is. To that end they will do anything. They'll move heaven and hell. Despite their choice of tactics, they are rarely if ever pointlessly cruel, and those who are tend to be so creative in their cruelty that it practically becomes an art form.

They are charismatic, often charming, their personality is like a physical force. People tend to like them, sometimes even when they know they aren't on their side, and even those who hate their guts have to admit respect. Even when at their darkest, they have traits which one can't help but admire.

They are Genre Savvy. They do not fall for obvious traps, release the Sealed Evil in a Can or negotiate a Deal with the Devil before having devised The Plan to deal with it. Bringing them down is a long process of getting them cornered, although sometimes it is abrupt and played for shock value to show someone's awesomeness by comparison."

 

Remind you of anyone? Perhaps someone whose name rhymes with "Mag-nar"? Your mention, @Green of how a show evolves and the fact that Ragnar has become the "Magnificent Bastard" makes me think he's not going to die in Aella's snake-pit. Aella is no match for Ragnar and thus far, I don't think Ecgbert is quite there either. The show is going to have a very hard time killing off Ragnar in any kind of believable way...

 

ETA: Hmmm… Maybe he could come down with tertiary syphilis from his dalliance with Queen Krazypants and go insane? Just brainstorming, here.  ;)

 

Another Edit: Looks like syphilis didn't exist in Europe until after Columbus. Oh, well.

Edited April 4, 2015 by RiddleyWalker

[Damiano]

I imagine the taking if Paris like one of the pages of The Playbook by Barney Stinson:

First: Take the cross from your dead priest friend, say sorry to him

Second: Shave your head completely, like...a monk

Third: Go to Paris and try to conquer it with all your forces...meanwhile some of your enemy in your side could possibly die

Fourth: When nothing seems to work, you'll end badly wounded...everybody in paris would be happy, but actually you're fine

Fifth: Let everybody know that before you die you want to became christian and be buried with honor in paris

Sixth: You die and the parisienns will accept your coffin and your honor parade inside the city

Seventh: Once in the city, jump out of the coffin, slay them all, now the city is yours!