“For the watch”

[The Fattest Leech]

1 minute ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

Truer words couldn't be spoken.

I've the feeling that many on this thread, are the type of people that cheered when Bambi's mother was shot, or believe that William Zabka was the protagonist in The Karate Kid.

OH JEEBUS CHRIBST!!! My tea just went everywhere

Truer words couldn't be spoken.

[kissdbyfire]

10 hours ago, The Sunland Lord said:

Signed. 

How and why is it OK for some people that Marsh, Slynt, Thorne, etc. were in cahoots with the IT (read:Tywin), and not OK the fact that Jon wants to save his sister from the biggest psychopaths in Westeros is beyond me. And probably Marsh killed Jon to suck up to Ramsay anyways. He is from the sort of people who want to side with the winner no matter what and no matter the cost. 

 

W/o a doubt one of Marsh's motivations.  

[Edgar Allen Poemont]

 Rather than respond to individual posts, as I tried to do last night and lost everything I had spent an hour writing, I'm going to just throw my thoughts into the mix. First in response to the OP, I don't think the mutineers were skinchanged. I agree with the other responses that recalled the experience of Varamyr in the Prologue of ADWD. I'm intrigued with the possibility of other factors coming into play, but just don't think there is enough evidence of anything to say conclusively that Jon was poisoned or debilitated with milk of the poppy, but it's an interesting idea. I also think there are probably other conspirators too, and some of them will be men whose betrayal of Jon will be even more devastating to him personally, than Marsh or Wick's betrayals. I say betrayal because that is what happened, regardless of motivation or criticism or doubts of Jon's leadership. Men who were his sworn brothers and under his rule surrounded him in the cold and dark and confusion and knifed him. Men who coincidentally, would most likely be dead if not for Jon saving them from a well planned and coordinated wildling invasion. How anyone doesn't read that passage and see it as tragic is really beyond me. I do think Marsh is crying because he knows it's a cold dishonorable act and he knows it's murder and it's mutiny. You can argue Jon's decision was oathbreaking and you can call it treasonous, both claims that I will respond to, but bottom line, Jon was their Lord Commander, freely chosen by the men of the NW, and he was assassinated by his sworn brothers.

 There are a number of really good responses in this thread to the view of Jon as treasonous. Walda and the trees have eyes have some excellently thought out and articulated replies. Thank you for your thoughts and effort. Walda makes a very important point on what treason is and I'd like to expand on that distinction. Treason is an act against a legitimate monarch, government etc. by a subject or citizen of that country. What Jaime did in killing Aerys was treason, as well as oathbreaking. The treason was the killing the legitimate king. The oathbreaking was ignoring his vow to protect the king, ironically from himself. When Brandon Stark demands Rhaegar face him (presumably with sword in hand) it is treason. When Jon Arryn refuses to send his wards to Aerys and calls his banner, he commits treason and begins an outright rebellion against the throne. When Janos Slynt arrests Eddard Stark, the rightful Lord Regent,  at the behest of Littlefinger and Cersei, they are all committing treason. In all of those instances the treasonous acts were from sworn subjects of the 7 Kingdoms against either the legitimate ruler or his heir.

 I bring these examples up to make a subtle but very important distinction when looking at Jon's actions. It is impossible for Jon to commit treason because he is not a subject of the 7 Kingdoms. If the NW were subject to the ruler of the 7 Kingdoms, we should expect them to be run much like the Gold Cloaks of the City Watch, who are subjects. Their Lord would be appointed. They would be paid to do their duties and their duties would be whatever the king decided they were to be, because in the 7 Kingdoms the command of the king is the Law. The NW is dependent on the 7 Kingdoms for men and resources but it isn't subject to it's rule. This is why the Gift is a gift. The then sitting king and queen of the 7 Kingdoms presented the then acting Lord Commander with lands owned by their subject, the Warden of the North and then Lord of Winterfell. If the Lord of Winterfell had refused them, it would have been treason.  The NW is an independent brotherhood of exiles dedicated to the preservation of the realm, but it exists outside of it. When a man chooses to take the black, he has chosen to go into exile to a frontier region outside the realm of the 7 Kingdoms. It is done with the knowledge that it is a death sentence to return to the 7 Kingdoms without the express permission of the Lord Commander or permission of the King, once inside the realm, if he should so decree. The leader of the NW is a chosen Lord but from his election until his death, he is the Law on the Wall. His commands are the only law. Now, obviously delegation occurs down through the ranks, but the Lord is the final arbiter of law on the Wall. Jon can legally command the Watch to do whatever he wants them to do. This is to me one of the beautiful things about Jon's arc and one I think gets overlooked quite a bit. So many readers speculate that Jon might become King of the IT, but in a very real sense he has already assumed kingly powers and responsibilities by virtue of being elected Lord Commander of the Wall. The treaty with the wildlings, the marriage of Alys and Sigorn, the execution of Janos Slynt and indeed the execution by arrow of Rattleshirt/Mance are all examples of him exercising his legitimate ruling power within the boundaries of the Wall. I believe Stannis is well aware of this distinction, as well. If Jon had been subject to the IT, Stannis, the self declared (and likely strongest legal claimant) King of The 7 Kingdoms, could have commanded him to become Lord of Winterfell, but he doesn't. He offers him a Lordship, legitimization as a Stark and permission to legitimately return from exile on the Wall. Notice too, how Stannis never commands Jon to do something, but treats with him much like he would treat with an envoy from Essos or any other country outside his perceived realm. He was aggravated by the arrow execution, but did not reprimand or imprison, or even execute Jon for insubordination. How do you think it would have gone if Massey or any of his other subjects had defied his wishes like Jon did?

 All of the above is only to show that Jon did not and indeed could not act treasonously, but of course all the complexities of the situation at the Wall are still in play. In order to effectively wield the power that is rightfully his, Jon needs to have means to do so. The means simply being enough men to believe in him and/or follow his commands, like the answer to Varys riddle to Tyrion, and the resources necessary to carry out those commands. All things Jon has worked diligently to bring together, for what he believes to be his duty to the preservation of the realm of the 7 Kingdoms. The treaty with the wildlings, the loan from the Iron Bank, the support and supplies to Stannis and the reoccupation of abandoned forts are all perfectly within his rights and duties, as Lord Commander. Alliances and capital, of course, being the domain of rulers and kings, as well as gifting castles to those allies, if he should so choose. Signals of ruling power that are not lost on those around him, either. I believe Tormund and many other wildlings already view Jon as their ruler too, when this happens:

Quote

 

Yarwyck and Marsh were slipping out, he saw, and all their men behind them. It made no matter. He did not need them now. He did not want them. No man can ever say I made my brothers break their vows. If this is oathbreaking, the crime is mine and mine alone. Then Tormund was pounding him on the back, all gap-toothed grin from ear to ear. "Well spoken, crow. Now bring out the mead! Make them yours and get them drunk, that's how it's done. We'll make a wildling o' you yet, boy. Har!"

"I will send for ale," Jon said, distracted. Melisandre was gone, he realized, and so were the queen's knights. I should have gone to Selyse first. She has the right to know her lord is dead. "You must excuse me. I'll leave you to get them drunk

 

 

  Again, it is such a quintessential moment for the character we all know, "Knows Nothing," to become a defacto King of the Wildlings as seemingly unaware as when he became "husband" to Ygritte when he "stole" her on the Skirling Pass. If they named Jon, King o' the Wildlings directly, I'm certain he would reject the term and a crown to go with the term, if one existed, much the same way he wrestles with the perception of Val as a princess, but if they follow his commands as law, does it really matter what he is styled? The other interesting part of this quote is "No man can ever say I made my brothers break their vows. If this is oathbreaking, the crime is mine and mine alone." As Lord Commander, Jon can rightfully command them to break their vows, however he sees fit, in the same way Qhorin commanded him to break his vows, as Lord Commander Mormont's delegated commander of the scouting mission. Qhorin is not called Halfhand just because he's missing fingers. I think it's a clever allusion to him being a Halfhand to Mormont's Halfking status as Lord Commander, a status that Jon now holds (or did, depending). The expulsion of Barristan from the Kingsguard is another example of a ruler commanding a subject to disavow himself. I'm not saying it's a good or right or just thing to do, but in a system where the one on top's commands are law, it's legitimate. So much of that thought is bound to Jon's perceptions and sense of honor. He wants to spare them the pain he endured when ordered by Qhorin to turn his cloak and kill him. He wants to spare them the dishonor and shame of oathbreaking, which leads me to:

Quote

 

A Game of Thrones - Jon VI

They said the words together, as the last light faded in the west and grey day became black night.

"Hear my words, and bear witness to my vow," they recited, their voices filling the twilit grove. "Night gathers, and now my watch begins. It shall not end until my death. I shall take no wife, hold no lands, father no children. I shall wear no crowns and win no glory. I shall live and die at my post. I am the sword in the darkness. I am the watcher on the walls. I am the fire that burns against the cold, the light that brings the dawn, the horn that wakes the sleepers, the shield that guards the realms of men. I pledge my life and honor to the Night's Watch, for this night and all the nights to come."

The woods fell silent. "You knelt as boys," Bowen Marsh intoned solemnly. "Rise now as men of the Night's Watch."

 

 

 Which oath is Jon breaking by leading an expedition to confront Ramsey? There is no wife to gain, no lands to take, no crown and no glory to be had (although Ramsey carved up into dog food is dangerously close to glorious), so that leaves live and die at my post. Who decides what your post is when you become a sworn brother? The Lord Commander and his delegated officers do. It's interesting that the first NW we see are all away from the Wall. Waymar, Gared and Will are on a scouting mission, presumably under a command by Mormont. Gared is then beheaded by Eddard for desertion, under the delegated command of King Robert, for presumably being found in the company of wildings south of the Wall with no legitimate permission of Lord Commander Mormont. Benjen shows up Winterfell and attends the banquet in honor of the King and Queen of the 7 Kingdoms, but is not beheaded, so presumably he had legitimate permission from his Lord Commander to be there.  I believe it's not the first time he's been home since joining the Watch either and would surmise that is because the Lord of Winterfell is the chief friend of the Watch in the entire 7 Kingdoms and their most important ally, so it would make sense that Benjen was combining work with fun and cultivating that relationship between Winterfell and the NW. Therefore, if Jon decides that his post is not at Castle Black waiting for Ramsey to come with a list of demands he can't possibly meet and threatening his life if he doesn't meet them, it is his right and duty to do whatever he deems the appropriate response. Furthermore, if his expedition also results in the rescue of his sister, so much the better, but it isn't his primary objective (although probably his heart's wish). It would be what I like to think of as gifts from the Old Gods, like his execution of Janos Slynt. Slynt was executed for disobeying a direct command from his Lord Commander, not once but three times. It was insubordination and had the potential to fester into outright treasonous rebellion. Those were Jon's legitimate motivations and actually the thoughts he has leading up to it are centered on those motivations, but it's poetic justice that he also happened to be the pompous, bloviating, treasonous asshole behind the arrest and execution of his father, the rightful Regent of the 7 Kingdoms at the time of his arrest. Now, there is plenty of space to debate whether Jon's decisions at the Shieldhall were tactically the right moves but his authority to make those decisions is clear. Personally, I think it was a mistake tactically, because I think he acted prematurely and clearly was not as aware of the dangers surrounding him as he thought he was. I think he let his frustration and anger guide him at a moment when he needed to be most clear headed. I believe the lesson Jon will learn from the Ides of Marsh, should he survive, will be that he needs to utilize all the power available to him and it may play out that it was a mistake that will lead to a better outcome ultimately. And listen to your Direwolf always!

[kissdbyfire]

4 hours ago, Edgar Allen Poemont said:

Now, there is plenty of space to debate whether Jon's decisions at the Shieldhall were tactically the right moves but his authority to make those decisions is clear. Personally, I think it was a mistake tactically, because I think he acted prematurely and clearly was not as aware of the dangers surrounding him as he thought he was. I think he let his frustration and anger guide him at a moment when he needed to be most clear headed. I believe the lesson Jon will learn from the Ides of Marsh, should he survive, will be that he needs to utilize all the power available to him and it may play out that it was a mistake that will lead to a better outcome ultimately. And listen to your Direwolf always!

Great post.

The one thing I see differently is the bit above ... Jon and Tormund are talking and making plans, and the PL arrives. And that's when Jon changes his mind about said plans, and chooses love. Which is just as it should imo.

“It was signed,
Ramsay Bolton,
Trueborn Lord of Winterfell.
“Snow?” said Tormund Giantsbane. “You look like your father’s bloody head just rolled out o’ that paper.”
Jon Snow did not answer at once.”

<snip>

“I won’t say you’re wrong. What do you mean to do, crow?”
Jon flexed the fingers of his sword hand. The Night’s Watch takes no part. He closed his fist and opened it again. What you propose is nothing less than treason. He thought of Robb, with snowflakes melting in his hair. Kill the boy and let the man be born. He thought of Bran, clambering up a tower wall, agile as a monkey. Of Rickon’s breathless laughter. Of Sansa, brushing out Lady’s coat and singing to herself. You know nothing, Jon Snow. He thought of Arya, her hair as tangled as a bird’s nest. I made him a warm cloak from the skins of the six whores who came with him to Winterfell … I want my bride back … I want my bride back … I want my bride back …
“I think we had best change the plan,” Jon Snow said.”

[Wild Bill]

21 hours ago, Edgar Allen Poemont said:

 Rather than respond to individual posts, as I tried to do last night and lost everything I had spent an hour writing, I'm going to just throw my thoughts into the mix. First in response to the OP, I don't think the mutineers were skinchanged. I agree with the other responses that recalled the experience of Varamyr in the Prologue of ADWD. I'm intrigued with the possibility of other factors coming into play, but just don't think there is enough evidence of anything to say conclusively that Jon was poisoned or debilitated with milk of the poppy, but it's an interesting idea. I also think there are probably other conspirators too, and some of them will be men whose betrayal of Jon will be even more devastating to him personally, than Marsh or Wick's betrayals. I say betrayal because that is what happened, regardless of motivation or criticism or doubts of Jon's leadership. Men who were his sworn brothers and under his rule surrounded him in the cold and dark and confusion and knifed him. Men who coincidentally, would most likely be dead if not for Jon saving them from a well planned and coordinated wildling invasion. How anyone doesn't read that passage and see it as tragic is really beyond me. I do think Marsh is crying because he knows it's a cold dishonorable act and he knows it's murder and it's mutiny. You can argue Jon's decision was oathbreaking and you can call it treasonous, both claims that I will respond to, but bottom line, Jon was their Lord Commander, freely chosen by the men of the NW, and he was assassinated by his sworn brothers.

 There are a number of really good responses in this thread to the view of Jon as treasonous. Walda and the trees have eyes have some excellently thought out and articulated replies. Thank you for your thoughts and effort. Walda makes a very important point on what treason is and I'd like to expand on that distinction. Treason is an act against a legitimate monarch, government etc. by a subject or citizen of that country. What Jaime did in killing Aerys was treason, as well as oathbreaking. The treason was the killing the legitimate king. The oathbreaking was ignoring his vow to protect the king, ironically from himself. When Brandon Stark demands Rhaegar face him (presumably with sword in hand) it is treason. When Jon Arryn refuses to send his wards to Aerys and calls his banner, he commits treason and begins an outright rebellion against the throne. When Janos Slynt arrests Eddard Stark, the rightful Lord Regent,  at the behest of Littlefinger and Cersei, they are all committing treason. In all of those instances the treasonous acts were from sworn subjects of the 7 Kingdoms against either the legitimate ruler or his heir.

 I bring these examples up to make a subtle but very important distinction when looking at Jon's actions. It is impossible for Jon to commit treason because he is not a subject of the 7 Kingdoms. If the NW were subject to the ruler of the 7 Kingdoms, we should expect them to be run much like the Gold Cloaks of the City Watch, who are subjects. Their Lord would be appointed. They would be paid to do their duties and their duties would be whatever the king decided they were to be, because in the 7 Kingdoms the command of the king is the Law. The NW is dependent on the 7 Kingdoms for men and resources but it isn't subject to it's rule. This is why the Gift is a gift. The then sitting king and queen of the 7 Kingdoms presented the then acting Lord Commander with lands owned by their subject, the Warden of the North and then Lord of Winterfell. If the Lord of Winterfell had refused them, it would have been treason.  The NW is an independent brotherhood of exiles dedicated to the preservation of the realm, but it exists outside of it. When a man chooses to take the black, he has chosen to go into exile to a frontier region outside the realm of the 7 Kingdoms. It is done with the knowledge that it is a death sentence to return to the 7 Kingdoms without the express permission of the Lord Commander or permission of the King, once inside the realm, if he should so decree. The leader of the NW is a chosen Lord but from his election until his death, he is the Law on the Wall. His commands are the only law. Now, obviously delegation occurs down through the ranks, but the Lord is the final arbiter of law on the Wall. Jon can legally command the Watch to do whatever he wants them to do. This is to me one of the beautiful things about Jon's arc and one I think gets overlooked quite a bit. So many readers speculate that Jon might become King of the IT, but in a very real sense he has already assumed kingly powers and responsibilities by virtue of being elected Lord Commander of the Wall. The treaty with the wildlings, the marriage of Alys and Sigorn, the execution of Janos Slynt and indeed the execution by arrow of Rattleshirt/Mance are all examples of him exercising his legitimate ruling power within the boundaries of the Wall. I believe Stannis is well aware of this distinction, as well. If Jon had been subject to the IT, Stannis, the self declared (and likely strongest legal claimant) King of The 7 Kingdoms, could have commanded him to become Lord of Winterfell, but he doesn't. He offers him a Lordship, legitimization as a Stark and permission to legitimately return from exile on the Wall. Notice too, how Stannis never commands Jon to do something, but treats with him much like he would treat with an envoy from Essos or any other country outside his perceived realm. He was aggravated by the arrow execution, but did not reprimand or imprison, or even execute Jon for insubordination. How do you think it would have gone if Massey or any of his other subjects had defied his wishes like Jon did?

 All of the above is only to show that Jon did not and indeed could not act treasonously, but of course all the complexities of the situation at the Wall are still in play.

...

Great post!

My quote of your post went a bit long because I felt it summarised things quite nicely.  

There is one bit though, that I as a lazy git won't do the research on - to what degree does the book text support the notion of the Lord Commander of the Watch being the "equivalent" of a sovereign compared to the notion that the Watch will not interfere in the affairs of the Seven Kingdoms? This is, I think, a key bit on whether Jon's actions can, legalistically, be considered valid. You have asserted that is true.

And the Pink Letter is a complication. I think kissedbyfire brings up motivation, as compared to duty, in Jon's decision making. This problem is everywhere in this thread. There is probably no judgement to be made right now, since, well, Jon is dead and the book ended...

[Clegane'sPup]

20 hours ago, Wild Bill said:

And the Pink Letter is a complication. I think kissedbyfire brings up motivation, as compared to duty, in Jon's decision making. This problem is everywhere in this thread. There is probably no judgement to be made right now, since, well, Jon is dead and the book ended...

Ummmmmmmmmm, depending upon which side of the fence a person is setting ---- LC Snow may not be dead. He may be wounded. True dat one of the many cliffhangers of DwD is whether or not he is dead. Personally I think he is wounded. Thereby no priestess of the Red God resurrection is needed.

[Wild Bill]

3 hours ago, Clegane'sPup said:

Ummmmmmmmmm, depending upon which side of the fence a person is setting ---- LC Snow may not be dead. He may be wounded. True dat one of the many cliffhangers of DwD is whether or not he is dead. Personally I think he is wounded. Thereby no priestess of the Red God resurrection is needed.

Until we have George's next book, we have a situation akin to Schrödinger's cat.

[The Commentator]

On 12/9/2017 at 0:27 AM, Edgar Allen Poemont said:

 Rather than respond to individual posts, as I tried to do last night and lost everything I had spent an hour writing, I'm going to just throw my thoughts into the mix. First in response to the OP, I don't think the mutineers were skinchanged. I agree with the other responses that recalled the experience of Varamyr in the Prologue of ADWD. I'm intrigued with the possibility of other factors coming into play, but just don't think there is enough evidence of anything to say conclusively that Jon was poisoned or debilitated with milk of the poppy, but it's an interesting idea. I also think there are probably other conspirators too, and some of them will be men whose betrayal of Jon will be even more devastating to him personally, than Marsh or Wick's betrayals. I say betrayal because that is what happened, regardless of motivation or criticism or doubts of Jon's leadership. Men who were his sworn brothers and under his rule surrounded him in the cold and dark and confusion and knifed him. Men who coincidentally, would most likely be dead if not for Jon saving them from a well planned and coordinated wildling invasion. How anyone doesn't read that passage and see it as tragic is really beyond me. I do think Marsh is crying because he knows it's a cold dishonorable act and he knows it's murder and it's mutiny. You can argue Jon's decision was oathbreaking and you can call it treasonous, both claims that I will respond to, but bottom line, Jon was their Lord Commander, freely chosen by the men of the NW, and he was assassinated by his sworn brothers.

 There are a number of really good responses in this thread to the view of Jon as treasonous. Walda and the trees have eyes have some excellently thought out and articulated replies. Thank you for your thoughts and effort. Walda makes a very important point on what treason is and I'd like to expand on that distinction. Treason is an act against a legitimate monarch, government etc. by a subject or citizen of that country. What Jaime did in killing Aerys was treason, as well as oathbreaking. The treason was the killing the legitimate king. The oathbreaking was ignoring his vow to protect the king, ironically from himself. When Brandon Stark demands Rhaegar face him (presumably with sword in hand) it is treason. When Jon Arryn refuses to send his wards to Aerys and calls his banner, he commits treason and begins an outright rebellion against the throne. When Janos Slynt arrests Eddard Stark, the rightful Lord Regent,  at the behest of Littlefinger and Cersei, they are all committing treason. In all of those instances the treasonous acts were from sworn subjects of the 7 Kingdoms against either the legitimate ruler or his heir.

 I bring these examples up to make a subtle but very important distinction when looking at Jon's actions. It is impossible for Jon to commit treason because he is not a subject of the 7 Kingdoms. If the NW were subject to the ruler of the 7 Kingdoms, we should expect them to be run much like the Gold Cloaks of the City Watch, who are subjects. Their Lord would be appointed. They would be paid to do their duties and their duties would be whatever the king decided they were to be, because in the 7 Kingdoms the command of the king is the Law. The NW is dependent on the 7 Kingdoms for men and resources but it isn't subject to it's rule. This is why the Gift is a gift. The then sitting king and queen of the 7 Kingdoms presented the then acting Lord Commander with lands owned by their subject, the Warden of the North and then Lord of Winterfell. If the Lord of Winterfell had refused them, it would have been treason.  The NW is an independent brotherhood of exiles dedicated to the preservation of the realm, but it exists outside of it. When a man chooses to take the black, he has chosen to go into exile to a frontier region outside the realm of the 7 Kingdoms. It is done with the knowledge that it is a death sentence to return to the 7 Kingdoms without the express permission of the Lord Commander or permission of the King, once inside the realm, if he should so decree. The leader of the NW is a chosen Lord but from his election until his death, he is the Law on the Wall. His commands are the only law. Now, obviously delegation occurs down through the ranks, but the Lord is the final arbiter of law on the Wall. Jon can legally command the Watch to do whatever he wants them to do. This is to me one of the beautiful things about Jon's arc and one I think gets overlooked quite a bit. So many readers speculate that Jon might become King of the IT, but in a very real sense he has already assumed kingly powers and responsibilities by virtue of being elected Lord Commander of the Wall. The treaty with the wildlings, the marriage of Alys and Sigorn, the execution of Janos Slynt and indeed the execution by arrow of Rattleshirt/Mance are all examples of him exercising his legitimate ruling power within the boundaries of the Wall. I believe Stannis is well aware of this distinction, as well. If Jon had been subject to the IT, Stannis, the self declared (and likely strongest legal claimant) King of The 7 Kingdoms, could have commanded him to become Lord of Winterfell, but he doesn't. He offers him a Lordship, legitimization as a Stark and permission to legitimately return from exile on the Wall. Notice too, how Stannis never commands Jon to do something, but treats with him much like he would treat with an envoy from Essos or any other country outside his perceived realm. He was aggravated by the arrow execution, but did not reprimand or imprison, or even execute Jon for insubordination. How do you think it would have gone if Massey or any of his other subjects had defied his wishes like Jon did?

 All of the above is only to show that Jon did not and indeed could not act treasonously, but of course all the complexities of the situation at the Wall are still in play. In order to effectively wield the power that is rightfully his, Jon needs to have means to do so. The means simply being enough men to believe in him and/or follow his commands, like the answer to Varys riddle to Tyrion, and the resources necessary to carry out those commands. All things Jon has worked diligently to bring together, for what he believes to be his duty to the preservation of the realm of the 7 Kingdoms. The treaty with the wildlings, the loan from the Iron Bank, the support and supplies to Stannis and the reoccupation of abandoned forts are all perfectly within his rights and duties, as Lord Commander. Alliances and capital, of course, being the domain of rulers and kings, as well as gifting castles to those allies, if he should so choose. Signals of ruling power that are not lost on those around him, either. I believe Tormund and many other wildlings already view Jon as their ruler too, when this happens:

 

  Again, it is such a quintessential moment for the character we all know, "Knows Nothing," to become a defacto King of the Wildlings as seemingly unaware as when he became "husband" to Ygritte when he "stole" her on the Skirling Pass. If they named Jon, King o' the Wildlings directly, I'm certain he would reject the term and a crown to go with the term, if one existed, much the same way he wrestles with the perception of Val as a princess, but if they follow his commands as law, does it really matter what he is styled? The other interesting part of this quote is "No man can ever say I made my brothers break their vows. If this is oathbreaking, the crime is mine and mine alone." As Lord Commander, Jon can rightfully command them to break their vows, however he sees fit, in the same way Qhorin commanded him to break his vows, as Lord Commander Mormont's delegated commander of the scouting mission. Qhorin is not called Halfhand just because he's missing fingers. I think it's a clever allusion to him being a Halfhand to Mormont's Halfking status as Lord Commander, a status that Jon now holds (or did, depending). The expulsion of Barristan from the Kingsguard is another example of a ruler commanding a subject to disavow himself. I'm not saying it's a good or right or just thing to do, but in a system where the one on top's commands are law, it's legitimate. So much of that thought is bound to Jon's perceptions and sense of honor. He wants to spare them the pain he endured when ordered by Qhorin to turn his cloak and kill him. He wants to spare them the dishonor and shame of oathbreaking, which leads me to:

 

 Which oath is Jon breaking by leading an expedition to confront Ramsey? There is no wife to gain, no lands to take, no crown and no glory to be had (although Ramsey carved up into dog food is dangerously close to glorious), so that leaves live and die at my post. Who decides what your post is when you become a sworn brother? The Lord Commander and his delegated officers do. It's interesting that the first NW we see are all away from the Wall. Waymar, Gared and Will are on a scouting mission, presumably under a command by Mormont. Gared is then beheaded by Eddard for desertion, under the delegated command of King Robert, for presumably being found in the company of wildings south of the Wall with no legitimate permission of Lord Commander Mormont. Benjen shows up Winterfell and attends the banquet in honor of the King and Queen of the 7 Kingdoms, but is not beheaded, so presumably he had legitimate permission from his Lord Commander to be there.  I believe it's not the first time he's been home since joining the Watch either and would surmise that is because the Lord of Winterfell is the chief friend of the Watch in the entire 7 Kingdoms and their most important ally, so it would make sense that Benjen was combining work with fun and cultivating that relationship between Winterfell and the NW. Therefore, if Jon decides that his post is not at Castle Black waiting for Ramsey to come with a list of demands he can't possibly meet and threatening his life if he doesn't meet them, it is his right and duty to do whatever he deems the appropriate response. Furthermore, if his expedition also results in the rescue of his sister, so much the better, but it isn't his primary objective (although probably his heart's wish). It would be what I like to think of as gifts from the Old Gods, like his execution of Janos Slynt. Slynt was executed for disobeying a direct command from his Lord Commander, not once but three times. It was insubordination and had the potential to fester into outright treasonous rebellion. Those were Jon's legitimate motivations and actually the thoughts he has leading up to it are centered on those motivations, but it's poetic justice that he also happened to be the pompous, bloviating, treasonous asshole behind the arrest and execution of his father, the rightful Regent of the 7 Kingdoms at the time of his arrest. Now, there is plenty of space to debate whether Jon's decisions at the Shieldhall were tactically the right moves but his authority to make those decisions is clear. Personally, I think it was a mistake tactically, because I think he acted prematurely and clearly was not as aware of the dangers surrounding him as he thought he was. I think he let his frustration and anger guide him at a moment when he needed to be most clear headed. I believe the lesson Jon will learn from the Ides of Marsh, should he survive, will be that he needs to utilize all the power available to him and it may play out that it was a mistake that will lead to a better outcome ultimately. And listen to your Direwolf always!

The Wall is not Jon's personal property nor is it his right to attack House Bolton.  He is the lord commander by election.   He is not a monarch like Aerys.  A monarch has power because of who he is and by inheritance.  Aerys is the law.  Jon doesn't get to do that.  Jon has to abide by the laws of the order that he joined.  He is obligated and he has a duty to uphold those laws.  Jon doesn't have the right to interfere with the marriage of Ramsay and Arya.  Setting up a Wildling army to fight a personal war and preparing to attack the legitimate Warden of the North is not within the rights of the lord commander of the night's watch.  Jon was wrong from the start when he gave Mance Rayder a get-out-of-execution card so the man can do his dirty work for him.  It just went downhill from there when he sent the wildlings to rescue his sister.  Jon was wrong and Bowen Marsh had no other choice but to stop him.  

[LynnS]

17 minutes ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

The Wall is not Jon's personal property nor is it his right to attack House Bolton.  He is the lord commander by election.   He is not a monarch like Aerys.  A monarch has power because of who he is and by inheritance.  Aerys is the law.  Jon doesn't get to do that.  Jon has to abide by the laws of the order that he joined.  He is obligated and he has a duty to uphold those laws.  Jon doesn't have the right to interfere with the marriage of Ramsay and Arya.  Setting up a Wildling army to fight a personal war and preparing to attack the legitimate Warden of the North is not within the rights of the lord commander of the night's watch.  Jon was wrong from the start when he gave Mance Rayder a get-out-of-execution card so the man can do his dirty work for him.  It just went downhill from there when he sent the wildlings to rescue his sister.  Jon was wrong and Bowen Marsh had no other choice but to stop him.  

Irrelevant.  The conspirators will be the first to die in the aftermath.  So much for the law.

[divica]

9 minutes ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

The Wall is not Jon's personal property nor is it his right to attack House Bolton.  He is the lord commander by election.   He is not a monarch like Aerys.  A monarch has power because of who he is and by inheritance.  Aerys is the law.  Jon doesn't get to do that.  Jon has to abide by the laws of the order that he joined.  He is obligated and he has a duty to uphold those laws.  Jon doesn't have the right to interfere with the marriage of Ramsay and Arya.  Setting up a Wildling army to fight a personal war and preparing to attack the legitimate Warden of the North is not within the rights of the lord commander of the night's watch.  Jon was wrong from the start when he gave Mance Rayder a get-out-of-execution card so the man can do his dirty work for him.  It just went downhill from there when he sent the wildlings to rescue his sister.  Jon was wrong and Bowen Marsh had no other choice but to stop him.  

There is something you are forgeting. Ramsay threatened to kill everybody in the NW if they don t meet his demands. As Jon doesn t have his bride or reek he can t do as ramsay asks and therefore has to take action against him. If jon as LC thinks the best way to defend the watch is to attack winterfell he is within his rights! The one who is violating the laws is ramsay by wanting to attack the NW!

Also, even if jon had arya in castle black he couldn t simply deliver her back. He has no authority over arya! However he also couldn t fight ramsay in order to keep him away from her. Basically, if when ramsay got there legally jon should let him get inside castle black to get arya. But ramsay is going there to kill everybody because jon doesn t have arya! That gives Jon the right to do things witch would normally be oathbreaking!

 

In regards to mance. He isn t a member of the NW and as LC jon should have the authority to deal with na enemy from the north of the wal as he wishes... And sending him to winterfell to rescue arya is not very differently from feeding stannis men and giving him advice... Basically I would say as long as Jon doesn t directly interfer it isn t oathbreaking... there is a certain flexibility about how much the NW can interact with westeros.

 

[the trees have eyes]

On 10/12/2017 at 3:40 AM, Wild Bill said:

Great post!

My quote of your post went a bit long because I felt it summarised things quite nicely.  

There is one bit though, that I as a lazy git won't do the research on - to what degree does the book text support the notion of the Lord Commander of the Watch being the "equivalent" of a sovereign compared to the notion that the Watch will not interfere in the affairs of the Seven Kingdoms? This is, I think, a key bit on whether Jon's actions can, legalistically, be considered valid. You have asserted that is true.

And the Pink Letter is a complication. I think kissedbyfire brings up motivation, as compared to duty, in Jon's decision making. This problem is everywhere in this thread. There is probably no judgement to be made right now, since, well, Jon is dead and the book ended...

There's no language that would support it if that's what you mean but the idea is a useful one to an extent. 

In creating the NW the early Westerosi were careful not to create a little kingdom at the Wall or a sovereign in the LC: the vows about not marrying or fathering children or holding lands to pass as an inheritance are specifically designed to prevent this.  So the LC is not to be thought of as a sovereign but he is the ultimate authority at the wall and the early kingdoms of Westeros specifically put the NW outside their oath and homage system and chain of command so it could remain focused on it's purpose and not be drawn into any affairs of the kingdoms.  It works both ways: the NW is neither a threat to any of them, nor a tool to be used by any of them.

It's an anomalous situation.  The LC displays some of the features of a sovereign but he lacks many others,e.g. heredity, political alliances, law-making.  The LC is really a practical if not formal dependent of the Crown who has wide-ranging powers and autonomy.

A few general thoughts:

Re treason - NW and the Crown

On the one hand the NW predates the 7K by millennia so there is no legal grounds for saying the NW are part of the 7K or subordinate to the IT and they are clearly beyond the remit of it's authority.  Can they then commit treason against the IT?

On the other hand they receive all of their recruits from the 7K (do we have a single Essosi or non-Westerosi on the Wall?) so even if they feed themselves from the Gift they are not self-sufficient and without manpower they become extinct within a generation.  So the order is practically dependent on the IT for it's survival and the habit of loyalty to the throne even at one remove is conditioned into them.  A don't bite the hand that feeds mentality clearly has merit and exercises the mind of Marsh et al.  As the current NW were formerly subjects of the IT (and as this has been the case for 300 years the NW view of their loyalties and relationship with the IT has adapted over time) it seems they still think of themselves that way.  It's as if the LC of the NW is in some way a bannerman to the IT and they see any "intervention" in politics as both breaking with the traditions of NW neutrality (a precondition for it's survival) and committing treason agaisnt their former King / supreme commander.  If circumstances had been different and Jon had been in the position of intending to lead a force against rebels fighting the IT rather than against the IT-appointed Warden of the North would it have provoked the same reaction?  I think not.  There would have been mutterings about the tradition of neutrality but the plotters think it's Jon's opposition to the IT's choice in the civil war that is the "treason" and the last straw.

Re Treason - the NW vows

Jon himself wonders if what he is doing is treason.  But in what sense?  Treason because he is still in some sense a subject of the IT and in moving from offering Stannis advice to marching to fight Ramsay he is in open rebellion against a higher authority to which he is subject? 

Or treason agasint his vows as a member of the NW to defend the Wall and guard the realms of men?  We know he's not deserting or abandoning the NW so it's hard for me to see this as what exercises his mind so much.  Is he concerned about betraying the NW, treason against the NW if you like, or treason against the IT?  I think the latter and the reaction that might provoke and the consequences for the NW. 

I don't think any of what he does - letting the wildlings through the wall (in return for hostages for good behaviour), advising Stannis while attempting to use his men as aliied forces against the Others, or meeting Ramsay's threat with a wildling strike force (caveated for the truth of the pink letter and his plans with Tormund) is treason against the NW, it's all intended to further the purpose of building up the NW and keeping it strong.  It is of course possible to see advising Stannis as treason agasinst the IT but that brings us to the nub of the matter: which is Jon or any NW member's primary concern: loyalty to the IT or the defence of the realms of men agasint the others?  I think the answer is pretty obvious but to be clear, Jon should choose a course of action that benefits the NW's purpose whether or not it puts him at odds with the IT.  Westeros is at civil war, the one king who answered his pleas for help is Stannis and the NW's and Jon's course of action is driven by those facts.  Marsh and co differ but this is simply and sadly a civil war in miniature within the NW itself.
 

[Clegane'sPup]

19 hours ago, Wild Bill said:

Until we have George's next book, we have a situation akin to Schrödinger's cat.

Well yes, until the WoW is released the readers are stuck with multiple cliffhangers.

As to the cat in the box ----- when my cat gets rowdy and mischievous  ----- he has a cardboard box filled with gift wrap tissue paper ----- after he does what cats do he gets in that box and digs around ------ then he sits there looking at me as if to say ----- I didn't do it and you can't see me while I am in my box. Cracks me up every time.

[Wild Bill]

4 hours ago, Clegane'sPup said:

Well yes, until the WoW is released the readers are stuck with multiple cliffhangers.

As to the cat in the box ----- when my cat gets rowdy and mischievous  ----- he has a cardboard box filled with gift wrap tissue paper ----- after he does what cats do he gets in that box and digs around ------ then he sits there looking at me as if to say ----- I didn't do it and you can't see me while I am in my box. Cracks me up every time.

Is the tissue paper pink? [don't look!]

BTW, I have two "lovable" cats. One has a severe paper fetish where bringing in groceries in a paper bag, and then leaving the bag on the floor is the greatest act of love (except for his "special snacks"). An ASOAIF tie in? Perhaps...

 

[Wild Bill]

13 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

There's no language that would support it if that's what you mean but the idea is a useful one to an extent. 

In creating the NW the early Westerosi were careful not to create a little kingdom at the Wall or a sovereign in the LC: the vows about not marrying or fathering children or holding lands to pass as an inheritance are specifically designed to prevent this.  So the LC is not to be thought of as a sovereign but he is the ultimate authority at the wall and the early kingdoms of Westeros specifically put the NW outside their oath and homage system and chain of command so it could remain focused on it's purpose and not be drawn into any affairs of the kingdoms.  It works both ways: the NW is neither a threat to any of them, nor a tool to be used by any of them.

It's an anomalous situation.  The LC displays some of the features of a sovereign but he lacks many others,e.g. heredity, political alliances, law-making.  The LC is really a practical if not formal dependent of the Crown who has wide-ranging powers and autonomy.

A few general thoughts:

Re treason - NW and the Crown

On the one hand the NW predates the 7K by millennia so there is no legal grounds for saying the NW are part of the 7K or subordinate to the IT and they are clearly beyond the remit of it's authority.  Can they then commit treason against the IT?

On the other hand they receive all of their recruits from the 7K (do we have a single Essosi or non-Westerosi on the Wall?) so even if they feed themselves from the Gift they are not self-sufficient and without manpower they become extinct within a generation.  So the order is practically dependent on the IT for it's survival and the habit of loyalty to the throne even at one remove is conditioned into them.  A don't bite the hand that feeds mentality clearly has merit and exercises the mind of Marsh et al.  As the current NW were formerly subjects of the IT (and as this has been the case for 300 years the NW view of their loyalties and relationship with the IT has adapted over time) it seems they still think of themselves that way.  It's as if the LC of the NW is in some way a bannerman to the IT and they see any "intervention" in politics as both breaking with the traditions of NW neutrality (a precondition for it's survival) and committing treason agaisnt their former King / supreme commander.  If circumstances had been different and Jon had been in the position of intending to lead a force against rebels fighting the IT rather than against the IT-appointed Warden of the North would it have provoked the same reaction?  I think not.  There would have been mutterings about the tradition of neutrality but the plotters think it's Jon's opposition to the IT's choice in the civil war that is the "treason" and the last straw.

Re Treason - the NW vows

Jon himself wonders if what he is doing is treason.  But in what sense?  Treason because he is still in some sense a subject of the IT and in moving from offering Stannis advice to marching to fight Ramsay he is in open rebellion against a higher authority to which he is subject? 

Or treason agasint his vows as a member of the NW to defend the Wall and guard the realms of men?  We know he's not deserting or abandoning the NW so it's hard for me to see this as what exercises his mind so much.  Is he concerned about betraying the NW, treason against the NW if you like, or treason against the IT?  I think the latter and the reaction that might provoke and the consequences for the NW. 

I don't think any of what he does - letting the wildlings through the wall (in return for hostages for good behaviour), advising Stannis while attempting to use his men as aliied forces against the Others, or meeting Ramsay's threat with a wildling strike force (caveated for the truth of the pink letter and his plans with Tormund) is treason against the NW, it's all intended to further the purpose of building up the NW and keeping it strong.  It is of course possible to see advising Stannis as treason agasinst the IT but that brings us to the nub of the matter: which is Jon or any NW member's primary concern: loyalty to the IT or the defence of the realms of men agasint the others?  I think the answer is pretty obvious but to be clear, Jon should choose a course of action that benefits the NW's purpose whether or not it puts him at odds with the IT.  Westeros is at civil war, the one king who answered his pleas for help is Stannis and the NW's and Jon's course of action is driven by those facts.  Marsh and co differ but this is simply and sadly a civil war in miniature within the NW itself.
 

Excellent!

I used the word "legalistically" (if such exists...). Your post implies circumstances that might require the judgement of the LC to bend "traditional" interpretation of the LC's duties.

But still, it might be useful to compare any variance from supposed "normal" legal/societal order compared to, basically, everything going on in Westeros (the rape of the land, incest, regicide, fratricide, insecticide) vs NW activity. Oops, sorry insecticide is probably not supported in the text unless grrm's food porn might have mentioned in passing

[Edgar Allen Poemont]

On ‎12‎/‎9‎/‎2017 at 7:40 PM, Wild Bill said:

There is one bit though, that I as a lazy git won't do the research on - to what degree does the book text support the notion of the Lord Commander of the Watch being the "equivalent" of a sovereign compared to the notion that the Watch will not interfere in the affairs of the Seven Kingdoms? This is, I think, a key bit on whether Jon's actions can, legalistically, be considered valid. You have asserted that is true.

First of all I want to say thank you to those who took the time to read my post the other day and then the time to respond. I had to contend with my own hard choices between love and duty myself this weekend. My love being immersed in ASoIaF, but my duty to my family this holiday season had to take preference. I'll start here and say that I think there is support in the text, although it isn't a literal declaration of an equivalent sovereignty, there is quite a bit of support given to allow us to draw that conclusion and I think GRRM purposefully leaves explicit legal definitions vague for a reason. He wants us, the readers, to ponder the questions of right and wrong and who decides which is which, in the same way his characters do. One of the first big insights into the makeup of the NW as an order comes from Mormont at the ceremony before the swearing of the oaths, when the boys are being placed into their respective divisions within the order.

Quote

 

A Game of Thrones - Jon VI

The high officers arrived in a body; Maester Aemon leaning on Clydas, Ser Alliser cold-eyed and grim, Lord Commander Mormont resplendent in a black wool doublet with silvered bearclaw fastenings. Behind them came the senior members of the three orders: red-faced Bowen Marsh the Lord Steward, First Builder Othell Yarwyck, and Ser Jaremy Rykker, who commanded the rangers in the absence of Benjen Stark.

Mormont stood before the altar, the rainbow shining on his broad bald head. "You came to us outlaws," he began, "poachers, rapers, debtors, killers, and thieves. You came to us children. You came to us alone, in chains, with neither friends nor honor. You came to us rich, and you came to us poor. Some of you bear the names of proud houses. Others have only bastards' names, or no names at all. It makes no matter. All that is past now. On the Wall, we are all one house.

"At evenfall, as the sun sets and we face the gathering night, you shall take your vows. From that moment, you will be a Sworn Brother of the Night's Watch. Your crimes will be washed away, your debts forgiven. So too you must wash away your former loyalties, put aside your grudges, forget old wrongs and old loves alike. Here you begin anew.

A man of the Night's Watch lives his life for the realm. Not for a king, nor a lord, nor the honor of this house or that house, neither for gold nor glory nor a woman's love, but for the realm, and all the people in it. A man of the Night's Watch takes no wife and fathers no sons. Our wife is duty. Our mistress is honor. And you are the only sons we shall ever know.

"You have learned the words of the vow. Think carefully before you say them, for once you have taken the black, there is no turning back. The penalty for desertion is death." The Old Bear paused for a moment before he said, "Are there any among you who wish to leave our company? If so, go now, and no one shall think the less of you."

 

 This passage gives us a lot of information. We learn that saying the vows, no matter what your past allegiances or house or crimes or sins were, you leave them behind to enter life in service for the realm but not to the realm, and in fact shortly after, when they actually recite the vows, the realm, becomes realms of men, plural. You don't swear an oath to a king or a lord or a house, in fact, as we shortly find out, you swear those vows to the gods of your choosing. The deal, as I see it, is a life free from feudal obligations and forgiveness of sins and debts in return for a new life, wedded to the duty of protecting the realms of men, but again as members of a house of exiles outside of the realm itself. We get a reminder of what some of the vows are, in reference to taking no wife and having no sons, but these are not laws, they are vows. Then the reminder that the oath and the vows are binding for life. Then, and I might add very cleverly on Martin's part, the penalty for desertion is death. Desertion, not the breaking of vows! Then finally, the way out, if you choose to take it, is don't say the words. The implication for those brought in chains being good luck back under the rule of the 7 Kingdoms and for the voluntary candidates, go now if you want out. For those who love Martin's subtleties too, notice how he describes Mormont with the other high officers, to which I will add comment further down. A few pages later we get the actual vows. 

 

On ‎12‎/‎8‎/‎2017 at 9:27 PM, Edgar Allen Poemont said:

A Game of Thrones - Jon VI

They said the words together, as the last light faded in the west and grey day became black night.

"Hear my words, and bear witness to my vow," they recited, their voices filling the twilit grove. "Night gathers, and now my watch begins. It shall not end until my death. I shall take no wife, hold no lands, father no children. I shall wear no crowns and win no glory. I shall live and die at my post. I am the sword in the darkness. I am the watcher on the walls. I am the fire that burns against the cold, the light that brings the dawn, the horn that wakes the sleepers, the shield that guards the realms of men. I pledge my life and honor to the Night's Watch, for this night and all the nights to come."

 

Binding for life with the promises to take no wife, hold no lands, father no children, wear no crown, win no glory and live and die at your post. Promises, vows, or oaths that may seem like laws, but really aren't as we soon find out, followed by what I think are statements of purpose in the sword, the watcher, the fire etc., and again not laws. In Jon's next chapter we learn the following from Maester Aemon.

Quote

 

A Game of Thrones - Jon VIII

Jon, did you ever wonder why the men of the Night's Watch take no wives and father no children?" Maester Aemon asked.

Jon shrugged. "No." He scattered more meat. The fingers of his left hand were slimy with blood, and his right throbbed from the weight of the bucket.

"So they will not love," the old man answered, "for love is the bane of honor, the death of duty."

That did not sound right to Jon, yet he said nothing. The maester was a hundred years old, and a high officer of the Night's Watch; it was not his place to contradict him.

The old man seemed to sense his doubts. "Tell me, Jon, if the day should ever come when your lord father must needs choose between honor on the one hand and those he loves on the other, what would he do?"

Jon hesitated. He wanted to say that Lord Eddard would never dishonor himself, not even for love, yet inside a small sly voice whispered, He fathered a bastard, where was the honor in that? And your mother, what of his duty to her, he will not even say her name. "He would do whatever was right," he said … ringingly, to make up for his hesitation. "No matter what."

"Then Lord Eddard is a man in ten thousand. Most of us are not so strong. What is honor compared to a woman's love? What is duty against the feel of a newborn son in your arms … or the memory of a brother's smile? Wind and words. Wind and words. We are only human, and the gods have fashioned us for love. That is our great glory, and our great tragedy.

"Then Lord Eddard is a man in ten thousand. Most of us are not so strong. What is honor compared to a woman's love? What is duty against the feel of a newborn son in your arms … or the memory of a brother's smile? Wind and words. Wind and words. We are only human, and the gods have fashioned us for love. That is our great glory, and our great tragedy.

"The men who formed the Night's Watch knew that only their courage shielded the realm from the darkness to the north. They knew they must have no divided loyalties to weaken their resolve. So they vowed they would have no wives nor children.

"Yet brothers they had, and sisters. Mothers who gave them birth, fathers who gave them names. They came from a hundred quarrelsome kingdoms, and they knew times may change, but men do not. So they pledged as well that the Night's Watch would take no part in the battles of the realms it guarded.

"They kept their pledge. When Aegon slew Black Harren and claimed his kingdom, Harren's brother was Lord Commander on the Wall, with ten thousand swords to hand. He did not march. In the days when the Seven Kingdoms were seven kingdoms, not a generation passed that three or four of them were not at war. The Watch took no part. When the Andals crossed the narrow sea and swept away the kingdoms of the First Men, the sons of the fallen kings held true to their vows and remained at their posts. So it has always been, for years beyond counting. Such is the price of honor.

"A craven can be as brave as any man, when there is nothing to fear. And we all do our duty, when there is no cost to it. How easy it seems then, to walk the path of honor. Yet soon or late in every man's life comes a day when it is not easy, a day when he must choose."

 

I quoted a large section of this exchange because it contains the crux of Jon's arc and his self identity with all the dilemmas of love versus duty stated so eloquently and the tradition of honor inherent in the NW. You could spend weeks connecting this passage to Jon's arc in multiple ways but I mention it specifically here because it seems to support a lot of the claims in this assertion.

18 hours ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

The Wall is not Jon's personal property nor is it his right to attack House Bolton.  He is the lord commander by election.   He is not a monarch like Aerys.  A monarch has power because of who he is and by inheritance.  Aerys is the law.  Jon doesn't get to do that.  Jon has to abide by the laws of the order that he joined.  He is obligated and he has a duty to uphold those laws.  Jon doesn't have the right to interfere with the marriage of Ramsay and Arya.  Setting up a Wildling army to fight a personal war and preparing to attack the legitimate Warden of the North is not within the rights of the lord commander of the night's watch.  Jon was wrong from the start when he gave Mance Rayder a get-out-of-execution card so the man can do his dirty work for him.  It just went downhill from there when he sent the wildlings to rescue his sister.  Jon was wrong and Bowen Marsh had no other choice but to stop him.  

All those other Lord Commanders throughout the centuries kept their pledges. They took no part in the battles of the realms they guarded. Why can't Jon abide by the laws of the order that he joined?
 

Quote

 

pledge

[plej]

NOUN

pledges (plural noun)

a solemn promise or undertaking:

synonyms: promise · undertaking · vow · word · word of honor · commitment

Law

Law is a system of rules that are enforced through social institutions to govern behavior. Laws can be made by a collective legislature or by a single legislator, resulting in statutes, by the executive through decrees and regulations, or by judges through binding precedent, normally in common law jurisdictions.

The rule of law is the legal principle that law should govern a nation, as opposed to being governed by arbitrary decisions of individual government officials. It primarily refers to the influence and authority of law within society, particularly as a constraint upon behavior, including behavior of government officials.

 

 The NW is not governed by rule of law. They are not bound to the Iron Throne. They have no legislative body. They have no courts with which to establish common law. They have well established traditions and long standing tenets that they try to adhere to, but not laws. They have a ruler who is styled Lord Commander of the Night's Watch and whose commands are to be followed, as if they were law, but not a codified system of law. In fact, the NW doesn't even have a standard operating procedure manual. Incidentally, the same is true for the Seven Kingdoms.
 

Quote

 

rul·er

[ˈro͞olər]

NOUN

rulers (plural noun)

a person exercising government or dominion.

synonyms: leader · sovereign · monarch · potentate · king · queen · emperor ·

[more]

empress · prince · princess · crowned head · head of state · president · premier · governor · overlord · chief · chieftain · lord · dictator · autocrat

 

 Jon has been given the authority to rule the NW by the men who have all pledged their lives to it and can wield that power however he sees fit to ensure it's survival and to ensure it can exist long enough to fulfill those vows. Provided, of course, that he can bind enough men to his will and not get assassinated or deposed, in which case another ruler will be chosen or the order will cease to exist. Interestingly, as well, all the cases Aemon brings up like Harren's brother etc. and even his own examples of his personal struggle with maintaining his post and not deserting his brothers involve conflicts within the Seven Kingdoms. All of them are more akin to Jon's trial with the arrest of Eddard and the rebellion and subsequent crowning of Robb. None of them suggest a power from the Seven Kingdoms threatening to march on the NW. The Ramsey threat is a different situation altogether. Indeed, the only thing that seems to carry a death sentence in the NW is desertion and it's not up to the Lord Steward to make that distinction and carry out that sentence unless directed by his Lord Commander. The Lord Commander can make the distinction.

Quote

 

A Game of Thrones - Jon IX

"Pity, we could use a horse like that."

Jon stood tall. He told himself that he would die well; that much he could do, at the least. "I know the penalty for desertion, my lord. I'm not afraid to die."

"Die!" the raven cried.

"Nor live, I hope," Mormont said, cutting his ham with a dagger and feeding a bite to the bird. "You have not deserted—yet. Here you stand. If we beheaded every boy who rode to Mole's Town in the night, only ghosts would guard the Wall. Yet maybe you mean to flee again on the morrow, or a fortnight from now. Is that it? Is that your hope, boy?"

Jon kept silent.

 

 

Last thing for tonight. I mentioned the description of Mormont above in the first quote, "Lord Commander Mormont resplendent in a black wool doublet with silvered bearclaw fastenings" and I love how it ties to this exchange in ACoK.
 

Quote

 

 "Must I have a reason?" Mormont shifted in his seat, frowning. "Your brother Robb has been crowned King in the North. You and Aemon have that in common. A king for a brother."

"And this too," said Jon. "A vow."

The Old Bear gave a loud snort, and the raven took flight, flapping in a circle about the room. "Give me a man for every vow I've seen broken and the Wall will never lack for defenders."

"I've always known that Robb would be Lord of Winterfell."

Mormont gave a whistle, and the bird flew to him again and settled on his arm. "A lord's one thing, a king's another." He offered the raven a handful of corn from his pocket. "They will garb your brother Robb in silks, satins, and velvets of a hundred different colors, while you live and die in black ringmail. He will wed some beautiful princess and father sons on her. You'll have no wife, nor will you ever hold a child of your own blood in your arms. Robb will rule, you will serve. Men will call you a crow. Him they'll call Your Grace. Singers will praise every little thing he does, while your greatest deeds all go unsung. Tell me that none of this troubles you, Jon . . . and I'll name you a liar, and know I have the truth of it."

Jon drew himself up, taut as a bowstring. "And if it did trouble me, what might I do, bastard as I am?"

"What will you do?" Mormont asked. "Bastard as you are?"

"Be troubled," said Jon, "and keep my vows."

 

A lord may be one thing and a king another but apparently both like to look resplendent on occasion.

[Aline de Gavrillac]

Jon committed treason.  Even he knew it, slow as he is.  Read his thoughts in those chapters.

"The Night's Watch takes no part"

"What you propose is nothing less than treason"

"If one of my men told me his sister was in peril, I would tell him that was no concern of his"

It's clear he knew it's treason to stick his nose in the affairs of the Boltons. 

 

[Aline de Gavrillac]

On 12/9/2017 at 0:27 AM, Edgar Allen Poemont said:

 Rather than respond to individual posts, as I tried to do last night and lost everything I had spent an hour writing, I'm going to just throw my thoughts into the mix. First in response to the OP, I don't think the mutineers were skinchanged. I agree with the other responses that recalled the experience of Varamyr in the Prologue of ADWD. I'm intrigued with the possibility of other factors coming into play, but just don't think there is enough evidence of anything to say conclusively that Jon was poisoned or debilitated with milk of the poppy, but it's an interesting idea. I also think there are probably other conspirators too, and some of them will be men whose betrayal of Jon will be even more devastating to him personally, than Marsh or Wick's betrayals. I say betrayal because that is what happened, regardless of motivation or criticism or doubts of Jon's leadership. Men who were his sworn brothers and under his rule surrounded him in the cold and dark and confusion and knifed him. Men who coincidentally, would most likely be dead if not for Jon saving them from a well planned and coordinated wildling invasion. How anyone doesn't read that passage and see it as tragic is really beyond me. I do think Marsh is crying because he knows it's a cold dishonorable act and he knows it's murder and it's mutiny. You can argue Jon's decision was oathbreaking and you can call it treasonous, both claims that I will respond to, but bottom line, Jon was their Lord Commander, freely chosen by the men of the NW, and he was assassinated by his sworn brothers.

 There are a number of really good responses in this thread to the view of Jon as treasonous. Walda and the trees have eyes have some excellently thought out and articulated replies. Thank you for your thoughts and effort. Walda makes a very important point on what treason is and I'd like to expand on that distinction. Treason is an act against a legitimate monarch, government etc. by a subject or citizen of that country. What Jaime did in killing Aerys was treason, as well as oathbreaking. The treason was the killing the legitimate king. The oathbreaking was ignoring his vow to protect the king, ironically from himself. When Brandon Stark demands Rhaegar face him (presumably with sword in hand) it is treason. When Jon Arryn refuses to send his wards to Aerys and calls his banner, he commits treason and begins an outright rebellion against the throne. When Janos Slynt arrests Eddard Stark, the rightful Lord Regent,  at the behest of Littlefinger and Cersei, they are all committing treason. In all of those instances the treasonous acts were from sworn subjects of the 7 Kingdoms against either the legitimate ruler or his heir.

 I bring these examples up to make a subtle but very important distinction when looking at Jon's actions. It is impossible for Jon to commit treason because he is not a subject of the 7 Kingdoms. If the NW were subject to the ruler of the 7 Kingdoms, we should expect them to be run much like the Gold Cloaks of the City Watch, who are subjects. Their Lord would be appointed. They would be paid to do their duties and their duties would be whatever the king decided they were to be, because in the 7 Kingdoms the command of the king is the Law. The NW is dependent on the 7 Kingdoms for men and resources but it isn't subject to it's rule. This is why the Gift is a gift. The then sitting king and queen of the 7 Kingdoms presented the then acting Lord Commander with lands owned by their subject, the Warden of the North and then Lord of Winterfell. If the Lord of Winterfell had refused them, it would have been treason.  The NW is an independent brotherhood of exiles dedicated to the preservation of the realm, but it exists outside of it. When a man chooses to take the black, he has chosen to go into exile to a frontier region outside the realm of the 7 Kingdoms. It is done with the knowledge that it is a death sentence to return to the 7 Kingdoms without the express permission of the Lord Commander or permission of the King, once inside the realm, if he should so decree. The leader of the NW is a chosen Lord but from his election until his death, he is the Law on the Wall. His commands are the only law. Now, obviously delegation occurs down through the ranks, but the Lord is the final arbiter of law on the Wall. Jon can legally command the Watch to do whatever he wants them to do. This is to me one of the beautiful things about Jon's arc and one I think gets overlooked quite a bit. So many readers speculate that Jon might become King of the IT, but in a very real sense he has already assumed kingly powers and responsibilities by virtue of being elected Lord Commander of the Wall. The treaty with the wildlings, the marriage of Alys and Sigorn, the execution of Janos Slynt and indeed the execution by arrow of Rattleshirt/Mance are all examples of him exercising his legitimate ruling power within the boundaries of the Wall. I believe Stannis is well aware of this distinction, as well. If Jon had been subject to the IT, Stannis, the self declared (and likely strongest legal claimant) King of The 7 Kingdoms, could have commanded him to become Lord of Winterfell, but he doesn't. He offers him a Lordship, legitimization as a Stark and permission to legitimately return from exile on the Wall. Notice too, how Stannis never commands Jon to do something, but treats with him much like he would treat with an envoy from Essos or any other country outside his perceived realm. He was aggravated by the arrow execution, but did not reprimand or imprison, or even execute Jon for insubordination. How do you think it would have gone if Massey or any of his other subjects had defied his wishes like Jon did?

 All of the above is only to show that Jon did not and indeed could not act treasonously, but of course all the complexities of the situation at the Wall are still in play. In order to effectively wield the power that is rightfully his, Jon needs to have means to do so. The means simply being enough men to believe in him and/or follow his commands, like the answer to Varys riddle to Tyrion, and the resources necessary to carry out those commands. All things Jon has worked diligently to bring together, for what he believes to be his duty to the preservation of the realm of the 7 Kingdoms. The treaty with the wildlings, the loan from the Iron Bank, the support and supplies to Stannis and the reoccupation of abandoned forts are all perfectly within his rights and duties, as Lord Commander. Alliances and capital, of course, being the domain of rulers and kings, as well as gifting castles to those allies, if he should so choose. Signals of ruling power that are not lost on those around him, either. I believe Tormund and many other wildlings already view Jon as their ruler too, when this happens:

 

  Again, it is such a quintessential moment for the character we all know, "Knows Nothing," to become a defacto King of the Wildlings as seemingly unaware as when he became "husband" to Ygritte when he "stole" her on the Skirling Pass. If they named Jon, King o' the Wildlings directly, I'm certain he would reject the term and a crown to go with the term, if one existed, much the same way he wrestles with the perception of Val as a princess, but if they follow his commands as law, does it really matter what he is styled? The other interesting part of this quote is "No man can ever say I made my brothers break their vows. If this is oathbreaking, the crime is mine and mine alone." As Lord Commander, Jon can rightfully command them to break their vows, however he sees fit, in the same way Qhorin commanded him to break his vows, as Lord Commander Mormont's delegated commander of the scouting mission. Qhorin is not called Halfhand just because he's missing fingers. I think it's a clever allusion to him being a Halfhand to Mormont's Halfking status as Lord Commander, a status that Jon now holds (or did, depending). The expulsion of Barristan from the Kingsguard is another example of a ruler commanding a subject to disavow himself. I'm not saying it's a good or right or just thing to do, but in a system where the one on top's commands are law, it's legitimate. So much of that thought is bound to Jon's perceptions and sense of honor. He wants to spare them the pain he endured when ordered by Qhorin to turn his cloak and kill him. He wants to spare them the dishonor and shame of oathbreaking, which leads me to:

 

 Which oath is Jon breaking by leading an expedition to confront Ramsey? There is no wife to gain, no lands to take, no crown and no glory to be had (although Ramsey carved up into dog food is dangerously close to glorious), so that leaves live and die at my post. Who decides what your post is when you become a sworn brother? The Lord Commander and his delegated officers do. It's interesting that the first NW we see are all away from the Wall. Waymar, Gared and Will are on a scouting mission, presumably under a command by Mormont. Gared is then beheaded by Eddard for desertion, under the delegated command of King Robert, for presumably being found in the company of wildings south of the Wall with no legitimate permission of Lord Commander Mormont. Benjen shows up Winterfell and attends the banquet in honor of the King and Queen of the 7 Kingdoms, but is not beheaded, so presumably he had legitimate permission from his Lord Commander to be there.  I believe it's not the first time he's been home since joining the Watch either and would surmise that is because the Lord of Winterfell is the chief friend of the Watch in the entire 7 Kingdoms and their most important ally, so it would make sense that Benjen was combining work with fun and cultivating that relationship between Winterfell and the NW. Therefore, if Jon decides that his post is not at Castle Black waiting for Ramsey to come with a list of demands he can't possibly meet and threatening his life if he doesn't meet them, it is his right and duty to do whatever he deems the appropriate response. Furthermore, if his expedition also results in the rescue of his sister, so much the better, but it isn't his primary objective (although probably his heart's wish). It would be what I like to think of as gifts from the Old Gods, like his execution of Janos Slynt. Slynt was executed for disobeying a direct command from his Lord Commander, not once but three times. It was insubordination and had the potential to fester into outright treasonous rebellion. Those were Jon's legitimate motivations and actually the thoughts he has leading up to it are centered on those motivations, but it's poetic justice that he also happened to be the pompous, bloviating, treasonous asshole behind the arrest and execution of his father, the rightful Regent of the 7 Kingdoms at the time of his arrest. Now, there is plenty of space to debate whether Jon's decisions at the Shieldhall were tactically the right moves but his authority to make those decisions is clear. Personally, I think it was a mistake tactically, because I think he acted prematurely and clearly was not as aware of the dangers surrounding him as he thought he was. I think he let his frustration and anger guide him at a moment when he needed to be most clear headed. I believe the lesson Jon will learn from the Ides of Marsh, should he survive, will be that he needs to utilize all the power available to him and it may play out that it was a mistake that will lead to a better outcome ultimately. And listen to your Direwolf always!

I don't agree with you.  The brothers of the NW pledge their lives to the Watch, not the lord commander.  Bowen Marsh and every sworn brother have a duty to the Watch and if their lord commander is foolish enough to endanger the organization they have a duty to remove him from office.  And that is just what they did with Jon Snow.

[The Sunland Lord]

I think Jon made a mistake.

After he was elected LC, he should've executed Marsh, Thorne and whoever else was in the room for treason, after he already overheard them talking about granting Tywin Lannister's wish to chose Slynt as a LC.

Tywin had no business whatsoever to get to chose NW's Lord Commander.

He pardoned proven traitors and it cost him his life. 

[kissdbyfire]

4 hours ago, The Sunland Lord said:

I think Jon made a mistake.

After he was elected LC, he should've executed Marsh, Thorne and whoever else was in the room for treason, after he already overheard them talking about granting Tywin Lannister's wish to chose Slynt as a LC.

Tywin had no business whatsoever to get to chose NW's Lord Commander.

He pardoned proven traitors and it cost him his life. 

Now that is a brilliant idea. I wish he'd done that too. 

@Edgar Allen Poemont, very nice post upthread!

[Edgar Allen Poemont]

Thanks kissedbyfire. I always appreciate getting a nod from you. I have more to add to this discussion but need time to devote to it. Hopefully, later tonight. I've been giving a lot of thought to the quote you dropped upthread and how love plays into this whole thing. You put my eyes back on the prize, so to speak. However, duty calls!