Jump to content

Is Ned a traitor by westerosi law?


Marcus corvinus

Recommended Posts

Ned took in Jon targareyn and passed him off as his bastard. His king Robert had expressly outlawed all targareyns. Aiding, abetting and hiding targareyns is a crime against the state and treason against the king. So Ned in full awareness of the decree of his king illegally harbored Jon targareyn. So isn't Ned a criminal? A traitor to the realm?

After all ned himself was second in command of the rebels and helped robert overthrow the targareyns and bring about the baratheon dyanasty. 

So imagine you are a lawyer in a case for treason against Ned stark. How would you prosecute or defend him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Marcus corvinus said:

So imagine you are a lawyer in a case for treason against Ned stark. How would you prosecute or defend him?

I would advise Trial by Combat if I were defending Ned. Ned, according to the Westerosi way of executing the law, is a traitor if Robert, his king, believes him to be a traitor. Which I think Robert would if he found out. In a regular trial, Robert would then certainly condemn Ned, so unless the Gods absolve him of that crime (that is to say, he fights better than Robert or his champion), Ned would be pretty much screwed if Robert were to find out. And even in case Ned wins his trial, if Robert is still alive, he would still have to flee the Seven Kingdoms and spend the rest of his life in exile to escape Robert's wrath.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Assuming that he realy is a Targaryen bastard the prosecutor must prove the identity of the father. Since he has no Targaryen traits this would have been quite difficult. Only Howland Reed's testimony could be useful. Good luck tracking the cranogman down at the Neck.

So, the defense has a rather easy task, and the accuser no case.

Is Ned guilty for providing sanctuary and raised his nephew as his son? It is clear that Ned loved Jon. It was not only about keeping his promise. Even if he was accused for hiding Jon Waters in his mind he was protecting his nephew Jon Snow. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How would I defend Ned?  

1) There are royal decrees and there are moral considerations. Man-made law and divine law. Sometimes you have to choose between them.

2) Kinslaying is the greatest sin in the Seven Kingdoms, so you simply can't hand over your baby nephew to people who have just killed the baby's baby siblings.

3) Robert loved Lyanna so it was reasonable for Ned to suppose that Robert would want Lyanna's dying wish to be honoured above anything else, and it just happened to be her dying wish to keep Jon alive and his parentage secret from everyone. Therefore Ned only did what Robert would have wanted him to do. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Darksnider05 said:

You know I think if anyone could get away with taking and hiding Jon it's Eddard.  If Robert found out he'd be furious but the people Robert loves is basically just Eddard. 

Robert didn't love Ned. 

And Ned would not be a traitor in some people's eyes who doesn't view Robert as the legal king. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, The Wolves said:

Robert didn't love Ned. 

And Ned would not be a traitor in some people's eyes who doesn't view Robert as the legal king. 

Where did you get that Robert didn't love Ned?

Anyway, Ned would be a traitor if he was found guilty of hiding a Targaryen, but in order for Robert to condemn him for it and expect to still hold the north afterwards he would first have to prove it. if he just arrested Ned for treason without undeniable proof the North would rebel (as they did in canon when Joffrey had Ned arrested) The only person who could confirm or deny it was Howland Reed who would without a doubt support Ned. So no matter what suspicions or rumor's Robert had or heard, he couldn't do anything about it unless he wanted to fight the whole north on their home turf.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Marcus corvinus said:

Ned took in Jon targareyn and passed him off as his bastard. His king Robert had expressly outlawed all targareyns. Aiding, abetting and hiding targareyns is a crime against the state and treason against the king. So Ned in full awareness of the decree of his king illegally harbored Jon targareyn. So isn't Ned a criminal? A traitor to the realm?

After all ned himself was second in command of the rebels and helped robert overthrow the targareyns and bring about the baratheon dyanasty. 

So imagine you are a lawyer in a case for treason against Ned stark. How would you prosecute or defend him?

 

I'd say his name is Jon Snow. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Adam Yozza said:

Where did you get that Robert didn't love Ned?

Anyway, Ned would be a traitor if he was found guilty of hiding a Targaryen, but in order for Robert to condemn him for it and expect to still hold the north afterwards he would first have to prove it. if he just arrested Ned for treason without undeniable proof the North would rebel (as they did in canon when Joffrey had Ned arrested) The only person who could confirm or deny it was Howland Reed who would without a doubt support Ned. So no matter what suspicions or rumor's Robert had or heard, he couldn't do anything about it unless he wanted to fight the whole north on their home turf.

 

When has Robert ever shown that he loved Ned? He might have said it but saying and showing is two different things. Robert didn't treat Ned any different from anyone else, he sure as hell didn't respect Ned(everything in KL shows that Robert didn't care about Ned, not his opinions, feelings or anything else)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎9‎/‎25‎/‎2016 at 7:39 AM, Marcus corvinus said:

Ned took in Jon targareyn and passed him off as his bastard. His king Robert had expressly outlawed all targareyns. Aiding, abetting and hiding targareyns is a crime against the state and treason against the king. So Ned in full awareness of the decree of his king illegally harbored Jon targareyn. So isn't Ned a criminal? A traitor to the realm?

After all ned himself was second in command of the rebels and helped robert overthrow the targareyns and bring about the baratheon dyanasty. 

So imagine you are a lawyer in a case for treason against Ned stark. How would you prosecute or defend him?

Easy. I would ask that charges be dropped because Ned did not hide a Targaryen he hid a Sand. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2016-09-25 at 6:17 PM, The Wolves said:

When has Robert ever shown that he loved Ned? He might have said it but saying and showing is two different things. Robert didn't treat Ned any different from anyone else, he sure as hell didn't respect Ned(everything in KL shows that Robert didn't care about Ned, not his opinions, feelings or anything else)

Robert came all the way north to put his trust in Eddard when he was surrounded by enemies, Robert chose Eddard and Lyanna before Cersei and her children when they came to Winterfell. Two good examples of Robert having good feelings for Eddard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, from many points of view, in fact.

From the Targaryen point of view, he's a traitor to the Crown since he rebelled and seeked to replace the Targaryen monarch by someone else.

From Robert's point of view, he's a traitor because he hid Rhaegar's child, hid the truth about his children and the incest from him, and proceeded to tamper his royal will.

From Stannis's point of view, he's a traitor because he recognized Joffrey as Robert's rightful heir despite knowing better.

And from Joffrey's point of view, he's a traitor because he tried to replace him with his treasonous heathen uncle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LionoftheWest said:

Robert came all the way north to put his trust in Eddard when he was surrounded by enemies, Robert chose Eddard and Lyanna before Cersei and her children when they came to Winterfell. Two good examples of Robert having good feelings for Eddard.

Robert went all the way North to put his responsibilities on Ned. Robert is a person stuck in the past(everybody is, some more then others)he wanted his boyhood friend back to relive those days where he didn't have a kingdom to run or any responsibilities. Ned made him feel good about himself that's why he wanted him as Hand. 

And I'm not saying that Robert doesn't have positive feelings for Ned, I'm just saying that it's not love and not that different from how he treats anyone else. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did Robert actually "outlaw Targaryans?" Does he even have that kind of authority? Did Robert ever actually issue an edict that not only proscribed any extended family, bastards or descendants of the Targaryan family, but that anyone who could do it, but didn't, would die? That seems unlikely, since he himself is extended family to the Targaryans, and since he didn't order any assassinations on Viserys and Daenerys for a long time, despite Viserys's insistence that his knives were always on their tail. Did Robert even order the deaths of Aegon and Rhaenys? I thought Tywin did that. Robert just looked the other way - and there seems to be some potential legal dispute over whether that was proper or not.

Certainly it would be well within Robert's rights to order the execution of Jon Snow, but if he never actually did, then Ned isn't actually in defiance of any royal edicts.

And it would be within his rights to deputize somebody to go and kill all the Targaryans, or to bring him justice if he thought Ned had betrayed him, but if he never does this, I'm not sure there's a reason for Ned to be legally concerned.

I'm not sure there's really a "rule of law" in Westeros that holds him accountable for things in the abstract, absent of somebody accusing him of it in the court of a king or lord. And if somebody else accused him of it, you could perhaps say that unless the person is King Robert, then that person doesn't have standing to make the accusation.

In medieval law, this might also fall under the restrictions in Feudalism where lords and kings have the legitimate authority to use force against one another in feuds, but that they waive that right as a contractual obligation as part of the King's Peace (we don't really know what "bending the knee" specifically entails, but it seems to involve some sort of consent to observing that). And then there's the idea that the King's Peace forbid specific things, and mostly things involving public safety, and that most of the authority in a particular place derives not from the king, but from whoever owns that specific land.

This then introduces two ideas:

- Ned Stark shielding Jon Snow is a political or martial act, undertaken under his authority as Lord of Winterfell, and you're trying to hold him accountable for it because it creates conflict between the two of you.

- Ned Stark shielding Jon Snow is not a political act, but a personal one involving his household, and you're trying to hold him accountable for it because it is a generally unacceptable action under the law.

If you wanted to defend against, say, another lord of a Great House accusing Ned Stark of treason, he could be protected from judgment by the argument that this is a political dispute that would trigger a feud, and as such the other lord has signed away his right to pursue it personally under his homage to the king.

Or, if another lord of a Great House sought to exert authority over Ned Stark's household, he just might not have the legal authority to say what anybody else should be doing as long as it doesn't threaten anybody else, especially since Ned Stark doesn't report to anybody other than Robert himself - and even then, it's not clear if revealing the suspected parentage of his family's unacknowledged bastards falls under standard fealty and homage.

There is another medieval Germanic law that says that "the hand of the king," along with the Church, has the authority to provide sanctuary - Ned could have potentially argued if this was brought against him when he was Hand that his authority to shelter Jon was unimpeachable until he was discharged of his office, at which point he would have to get rid of him. You could bring up that Jon Arryn knew about Robert's own bastards but decided not to do anything to harm them, and that Jon Arryn was a wise and loyal man, so this act inherently is protected, and not treacherous even if it wasn't protected.

At any rate, whoever brought the dispute, the King himself would probably have to hear it - as nobody else would really have the authority to decide it. One argument, then, is that this is a personal matter and not worth the king's time - it won't proceed unless the king wants it to proceed. And then there are various vehicles that could get involved (a trial by combat, a trial by judges, a trial by the Faith), but there are a lot of defenses you could give in those areas, mostly along the lines of Jon Snow being a bastard and not being a threat to anybody, especially as he was never acknowledged, and perhaps some laws about lords in their territories having authority over what to do with unacknowledged bastards, or you could appeal to the King that you were always obedient to his orders, and that what you did here was not out of defiance, but out of the privacy of protecting the honor of your sister from the shame of bastardy. 

You could also argue legally that once Jon has taken the black he has renounced all lands and titles, and that by encouraging him to take the Black, Ned was not aiding or abetting a threat but removing it. And thus it is not treason. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, King Edd of House Tollet said:

I think the really good question is:

What if Jon was born with Targs traits such as silver-blond hair and purple eyes?

Now that would make Ned's life hard. He would be able to hide it from Roberto, but from his closest friend and family

he would say its his bastard with ashara....though that would make catelyn pull her beautiful auburn hair out

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, GyantSpyder said:

Did Robert actually "outlaw Targaryans?" Does he even have that kind of authority? Did Robert ever actually issue an edict that not only proscribed any extended family, bastards or descendants of the Targaryan family, but that anyone who could do it, but didn't, would die? That seems unlikely, since he himself is extended family to the Targaryans, and since he didn't order any assassinations on Viserys and Daenerys for a long time, despite Viserys's insistence that his knives were always on their tail. Did Robert even order the deaths of Aegon and Rhaenys? I thought Tywin did that. Robert just looked the other way - and there seems to be some potential legal dispute over whether that was proper or not.

Certainly it would be well within Robert's rights to order the execution of Jon Snow, but if he never actually did, then Ned isn't actually in defiance of any royal edicts.

And it would be within his rights to deputize somebody to go and kill all the Targaryans, or to bring him justice if he thought Ned had betrayed him, but if he never does this, I'm not sure there's a reason for Ned to be legally concerned.

I'm not sure there's really a "rule of law" in Westeros that holds him accountable for things in the abstract, absent of somebody accusing him of it in the court of a king or lord. And if somebody else accused him of it, you could perhaps say that unless the person is King Robert, then that person doesn't have standing to make the accusation.

In medieval law, this might also fall under the restrictions in Feudalism where lords and kings have the legitimate authority to use force against one another in feuds, but that they waive that right as a contractual obligation as part of the King's Peace (we don't really know what "bending the knee" specifically entails, but it seems to involve some sort of consent to observing that). And then there's the idea that the King's Peace forbid specific things, and mostly things involving public safety, and that most of the authority in a particular place derives not from the king, but from whoever owns that specific land.

This then introduces two ideas:

- Ned Stark shielding Jon Snow is a political or martial act, undertaken under his authority as Lord of Winterfell, and you're trying to hold him accountable for it because it creates conflict between the two of you.

- Ned Stark shielding Jon Snow is not a political act, but a personal one involving his household, and you're trying to hold him accountable for it because it is a generally unacceptable action under the law.

If you wanted to defend against, say, another lord of a Great House accusing Ned Stark of treason, he could be protected from judgment by the argument that this is a political dispute that would trigger a feud, and as such the other lord has signed away his right to pursue it personally under his homage to the king.

Or, if another lord of a Great House sought to exert authority over Ned Stark's household, he just might not have the legal authority to say what anybody else should be doing as long as it doesn't threaten anybody else, especially since Ned Stark doesn't report to anybody other than Robert himself - and even then, it's not clear if revealing the suspected parentage of his family's unacknowledged bastards falls under standard fealty and homage.

There is another medieval Germanic law that says that "the hand of the king," along with the Church, has the authority to provide sanctuary - Ned could have potentially argued if this was brought against him when he was Hand that his authority to shelter Jon was unimpeachable until he was discharged of his office, at which point he would have to get rid of him. You could bring up that Jon Arryn knew about Robert's own bastards but decided not to do anything to harm them, and that Jon Arryn was a wise and loyal man, so this act inherently is protected, and not treacherous even if it wasn't protected.

At any rate, whoever brought the dispute, the King himself would probably have to hear it - as nobody else would really have the authority to decide it. One argument, then, is that this is a personal matter and not worth the king's time - it won't proceed unless the king wants it to proceed. And then there are various vehicles that could get involved (a trial by combat, a trial by judges, a trial by the Faith), but there are a lot of defenses you could give in those areas, mostly along the lines of Jon Snow being a bastard and not being a threat to anybody, especially as he was never acknowledged, and perhaps some laws about lords in their territories having authority over what to do with unacknowledged bastards, or you could appeal to the King that you were always obedient to his orders, and that what you did here was not out of defiance, but out of the privacy of protecting the honor of your sister from the shame of bastardy. 

You could also argue legally that once Jon has taken the black he has renounced all lands and titles, and that by encouraging him to take the Black, Ned was not aiding or abetting a threat but removing it. And thus it is not treason. 

WOW!!! amazing post man! Yes but aiding and sheltering wanted enemies of the state would be a crime. And ned sheltered jon at a time when he was not the hand, after the tower of joy incident

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...