The Ned's Little Girl

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About The Ned's Little Girl

  • Rank
    With rings on her fingers and bells on her toes
  • Birthday August 20

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Cloud 11

Recent Profile Visitors

1,274 profile views
  1. There may be something in the books that describes or hints at reciprocal obligations of both host and guest, but on simple common sense grounds I don't see how guest right can only go in one direction and still be something that is taken so seriously by the citizens (even if it is more honored in the breach lately). What would possibly induce any host to offer guest right to anybody unless he was pretty certain that he also was protected by it? Also, correlation is not causation. Simply because we haven't seen guests attack their hosts doesn't mean that it's an acceptable thing for them to do. Unless guest right imposes obligations upon guests as well as hosts, such a norm could never have been successfully perpetuated in the society the way it has.
  2. Agreed, and just to expand a bit: When Tyrion arrived back at Winterfell after visiting the Wall, Robb received him with his naked sword laid across his knees, to show that guest right was not extended to Tyrion. Likewise, Wyman Manderley is extremely careful to inform Davos that he gave parting gifts to the visiting Freys, the purpose of which was to explicitly indicate that guest right had ended. It seems that guest right protection isn't assumed to be automatically given upon arrival in the host's house. Specific gestures are expected to be made first.
  3. Lordy. No, Jon didn't execute Slynt for disrespect; it was for refusing to obey his Lord Commander's order. It doesn't matter if Slynt "eventually agreed". He's a subordinate - he doesn't get to "eventually" agree to an order. He only must obey it without question. That's how chain of command works and always has. Please tell me you were being sarcastic with this ridiculous comment. Dear gods, I hope this one is sarcasm also.
  4. Um, no. Mance is the one responsible for being in Winterfell. Jon asked him to go rescue a grey girl on a dying horse in the vicinity of Long Lake. Nobody can be "indirectly responsible" for violating guest right. Such a thing cannot possibly exist. Guest right is a sacred obligation between a host and the guests in his house, not between a homeowner in his house and somebody else far away. A homeowner in his house has zero obligation under guest rights to somebody else far away, because in that case the homeowner is not a host. And the somebody else far away is not a guest.
  5. Thank you. I think you are probably correct. I appreciate all of your efforts in this thread; you're arguing valiantly.
  6. Okay, this makes no sense. First, you say Cersei "would not kill him" because she would somehow recognize Jon as Rhaegar's son by looking at Aurane Waters, then I point out that she thinks Jon should have been killed long ago and that now she has to take care of that and she agrees with the council to have him assassinated and she pictures him being stabbed and then she personally recruits the assassin to kill him. And somehow "she would not kill him" is proved by her planning to kill him? I honestly don't see what is the point you are trying to make.
  7. I think you should re-read that chapter of Cersei's. It just doesn't stand up to this interpretation. At the beginning of the council meeting (actually before it properly begins), Cersei looks at Aurane Waters and thinks very briefly of Rhaegar; it's really no more than a name-check. But she doesn't think about either of them for the rest of the chapter, not even when the subject of Jon Snow comes up at the end of the meeting. There is no "Aurane Waters connection" there. It's clear in the chapter that Cersei is "interested in Ned's bastard" only because of Jon's elevation of Lord Commander and because of his aid and assistance to Stannis. She refers to him as "Ned's bastard" because that's how she knows him. I don't know where you got the idea that she would not kill him; she absolutely wants him to be killed. When she thinks about Jon Snow's bastardy, she remembers her own anger at Robert over his bastards and how she once threatened Robert that she would kill them if he showed any interest in them. She thinks that Catelyn was a wimp for not having Jon smothered in his cradle and that now she has to do Catelyn's dirty work for her. She pictures the knife sliding into him. She agrees with Qyburn's plan to send assassins to kill Jon at the Wall and later in the chapter recruits Ser Osney Kettleblack to do the deed. There's no "she would not kill him" there.
  8. I took a quick look at that chapter and it doesn't read to me like this. Cersei has a fleeting thought about Aurane Waters' eyes and compares them to Rhaegar's, whereupon she quickly pivots to her own desirability and how she used to dress up as a boy. The council discusses a number of topics and although Cersei's thoughts are explained numerous times, but none of them concern Rhaegar. Jon Snow comes up only after 7 or 8 different topics (depending upon how you count them) are discussed. That is to say, a significant amount of time passes between Cersei's thought of Rhaegar and the subject of Jon Snow. In fact, Cersei doesn't think or say anything about Rhaegar for the rest of the chapter after the first mention, which is fleeting. Not even when, after the council meeting ends, she recruits Ser Osney Kettleblack to go north to assassinate Jon Snow. She tells him it's because Jon is aiding Stannis and she doesn't think anything about anything else at that point. Just to amplify this point, the three Kingsguard emphasize their duty as a Kingsguard one; when they say "But not of the Kingsguard" and "The Kingsguard does not flee" and "We swore a vow" and when they castigated Jaime as a "false brother" because he forsook his Kingsguard vow. It's not any old vow nor any old duty that kept them there.
  9. My goodness, we've gotten a long way away from "Jaime broke an oath when he killed Aerys".
  10. "Some secrets are safer kept hidden. Some secrets are too dangerous to share, even with those you love and trust." Besides, there's Ned's promise to Lyanna on her deathbed, which we don't know what it is but it could be something powerful and important enough to tie Ned's hands in this matter (of telling Jon).
  11. Why does that matter? A vow (or promise) is not one thing when made by a Royal and another thing when made by a private citizen. A vow can be broken by anyone, no matter their status in society. A broken vow is just as broken when done by a King/Queen as by a private citizen.
  12. Yes, it's been argued that Theon killing Bran and Rickon is a form of kin-slaying. I think it's primarily based on the Hooded Man calling Theon a kin-slayer. I don't remember if anyone else calls him that.
  13. The way I've understood it is that guest right protection extends throughout the duration of the visit. It begins once the guest has partaken of the host's food and drink. But Wyman Manderley showed that it continues until the visit is ended; thus, the giving of a gift of horses by him to the Freys on their departure from his hall was meant to show definitively that their protections under guest rights had now ended.
  14. The postings so far seem to be "opinions I hold that are unpopular with the community".
  15. I only brought up Ivanhoe to counter your seeming idea that Rhaegar carrying the flowers to Lyanna on the lance somehow meant it was a hostile gesture, or a warning gesture or something. I don't believe that it was such a gesture; I think it's common in literature about knightly tournament adventures, of which Ivanhoe is a classic, almost a prototype. Although, I would also argue that Rhaegar dropping the flowers into Lyanna's lap only enhances the phallic symbolism; more specifically, sexual intercourse symbolism, which wasn't terribly subtle. That's probably why nobody was smiling about it.