bel Posted March 19, 2018 Share Posted March 19, 2018 Supposedly there is no war or winter. Could Eddard judge and condem Ramsay for the rapes and murders and possibly Roose for covering his crimes? From what Manderly told Davos from time to time a woman will escape him, reach White Harbor and tell them what happened. Would the word of a few women be enough to put the Boltons to trial? Would the other lords of the North support a desicion to go to war against the Dreadfort or would they pressure Eddard to back off for lack of evidence? Eddard lost no time to condemn Clegane for attacking the Riverlands but that was a much different situation. Someone who could only be Gregor, was attacking the lands of other lords. It was one of those situations that could lead to large scale fightings. It was something essential. But in Ramsay's case it was just about some of his father's subjects. There was no lord with direct knowledge or interest to testify against him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ResidentHi11 Posted March 19, 2018 Share Posted March 19, 2018 No, because Eddard is dead. The whole thing would probably be hushed up if there isn't a war. Lady Hornwood isn't a widow etc. Roose would probably keep things quiet if there is no war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormking902 Posted March 19, 2018 Share Posted March 19, 2018 The honest truth of the matter is Eddard isnt starting a war with the Boltons over a few smallfolk claiming Ramsey was doing what he was litterally doing if there was NO evidence besides the word of said smallfolk. A better question would be what would Eddard do if there was evidence, I believe Eddard would call for Ramseys head but almost every other lord who doesnt hold honour as high as Eddard would STILL ignore the smallfolks claims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Commentator Posted March 19, 2018 Share Posted March 19, 2018 18 minutes ago, Stormking902 said: The honest truth of the matter is Eddard isnt starting a war with the Boltons over a few smallfolk claiming Ramsey was doing what he was litterally doing if there was NO evidence besides the word of said smallfolk. A better question would be what would Eddard do if there was evidence, I believe Eddard would call for Ramseys head but almost every other lord who doesnt hold honour as high as Eddard would STILL ignore the smallfolks claims. Perhaps. Ned was going to execute Jorah for slaving and we have no idea who provided the evidence against him. Bottom line, the Boltons are a stronger house than the Mormonts and Ned would wisely wish to avoid a costly battle. But you see, Roose is also smart. I think Roose would give up Ramsay to Ned instead of risking war to protect a bastard son. Ramsay's crimes against his hunt partners may not cost him his head, but his crimes against a fellow noble could. If Ramsay was taken to justice it will be because of what he did to Hornwood. What he did to his hunting playmates is not going to earn a noble man from a powerful house a trip to the chopping block. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bel Posted March 19, 2018 Author Share Posted March 19, 2018 If there were strong enough evidence that would be the testimony of a guy like Steelshanks. I suppose he is relatively known in the North as someone close to Roose. A guy who must surely know what happens in the Dreadfort. Perhaps then the other lords of the North who don't care about some commoners would have to support Eddard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zandru Posted March 19, 2018 Share Posted March 19, 2018 If you mean Eddard Stark as Hand of the King down in King's Landing, no - this would be the responsibility of the Warden of the North. Technically Lord Eddard Stark of Winterfell, but in his absence, probably Catelyn Tully-Stark and Robb. But to even contemplate charging Ramsey Snow for his atrocities, someone would have to plead for redress, basically file charges. Evidence would be needed. And maybe there would be little point to the whole exercise, because (1) the victims were smallfolk, and thus not considered human under the "law" anyway, and (2) even highborn ladies aren't considered worth the trouble of actually doing anything (re: Lady Hornwood) when the result would need to be war against the Dreadfort. A longwinded way of saying "no." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sourjapes Posted March 19, 2018 Share Posted March 19, 2018 Lord Roose feared that miller's brother going to Winterfell to tell his story so it seems that some peasants going to Winterfell and reporting these crimes ought to be enough. Granted, we don't know how long Ramsay has been doing this whilst it was known he was the Bastard of Bolton. He's only been at the Dreadfort since some time after Domeric's death but how long might that have been? Was it right after Domeric died? Was it a few months or a year later? He might have only been brought to the Dreadfort sometime during the first book, perhaps after Eddard went south. Roose seems shrewd enough to anticipate the realm may soon become destabilized and already be making moves to take advantage if any opportunities arise. A long shot perhaps, but plausible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moiraine Sedai Posted March 19, 2018 Share Posted March 19, 2018 5 hours ago, bel said: Supposedly there is no war or winter. Could Eddard judge and condem Ramsay for the rapes and murders and possibly Roose for covering his crimes? From what Manderly told Davos from time to time a woman will escape him, reach White Harbor and tell them what happened. Would the word of a few women be enough to put the Boltons to trial? Would the other lords of the North support a desicion to go to war against the Dreadfort or would they pressure Eddard to back off for lack of evidence? Eddard lost no time to condemn Clegane for attacking the Riverlands but that was a much different situation. Someone who could only be Gregor, was attacking the lands of other lords. It was one of those situations that could lead to large scale fightings. It was something essential. But in Ramsay's case it was just about some of his father's subjects. There was no lord with direct knowledge or interest to testify against him. Gregor attacked the riverlands. He crossed the line. Those were Tully's folks he killed. Ramsay as the son of a Lord gives him the right to administer the laws to his small folk with a wide latitude. So no justice for the poor girls he hunted. He can say they put sawdust on their bread, sold watered wine, whatever. He was about to be arrested for the death of Lady Hornwood, if memory serves. This is the only crime he can be judged for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Suburbs Posted March 19, 2018 Share Posted March 19, 2018 3 hours ago, Widowmaker 811 said: Perhaps. Ned was going to execute Jorah for slaving and we have no idea who provided the evidence against him. Bottom line, the Boltons are a stronger house than the Mormonts and Ned would wisely wish to avoid a costly battle. But you see, Roose is also smart. I think Roose would give up Ramsay to Ned instead of risking war to protect a bastard son. Ramsay's crimes against his hunt partners may not cost him his head, but his crimes against a fellow noble could. If Ramsay was taken to justice it will be because of what he did to Hornwood. What he did to his hunting playmates is not going to earn a noble man from a powerful house a trip to the chopping block. I think that, given enough evidence, Ned would at least geld Ramsey, if not execute him, and Roose would probably give him up rather than risk his seat. Remember, it wouldn't just be a war against Winterfell but pretty much every house in the north, none of whom have any great love for the Boltons. But having said that, mayhaps Roose might try to pull a fast one by executing a false Ramsey? That would complicate matters when it comes to legitimizing him and naming him the new heir, but there is no reason why he couldn't acknowledge another bastard. "Hey everyone, meet my natural son, Roscoe Bolton." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moiraine Sedai Posted March 19, 2018 Share Posted March 19, 2018 Roose could give up Reek and say it's Ramsay. Ned wouldn't know the difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevets Posted March 19, 2018 Share Posted March 19, 2018 Roose had been worried about news of his crimes getting out to Lord Rickard, and took measures to keep it quiet. So he was apparently worried about Rickard exerting justice on him. Ned appears pretty aggressive about justice, so I would expect that Ramsay could find himself in trouble should news of his atrocities get out to someone in a position to do something about it. As Warden of the North, Ned has authority over the other Lords with regards to justice (I think). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aline de Gavrillac Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 6 hours ago, Nevets said: Roose had been worried about news of his crimes getting out to Lord Rickard, and took measures to keep it quiet. So he was apparently worried about Rickard exerting justice on him. Ned appears pretty aggressive about justice, so I would expect that Ramsay could find himself in trouble should news of his atrocities get out to someone in a position to do something about it. As Warden of the North, Ned has authority over the other Lords with regards to justice (I think). Unless Ned is like his boys, fickle about justice. Ramsay is not the only one breaking laws. There were other people said to continue the practice of the lord's right to sleep with the bride on the wedding night. Politics may drive Ned's decisions. Enough of the right people complaining will make him punish Ramsay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GallowsKnight Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 10 hours ago, Widowmaker 811 said: Perhaps. Ned was going to execute Jorah for slaving and we have no idea who provided the evidence against him.. I always took it as Ned went to Bear Island to investigate the accusation/rumors. Jorah panicked and fled, confirming his guilt. Had Jorah stayed he might have been able to cover it up enough to get off, or failing that demand trial by combat and win proving his innocence or if it was very obvious/he confessed he could always ask to take the Black. Cracking the Boltons crimes would be harder because Roose and Ramsay would kill all the witnesses, threaten all their retainers who might have aided them and lie to Eddard's face. Ned has to basically take their word or declare outright war on his vassal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ygrain Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 Perhaps I am naïve, but it did take a word of peasants for Ned to go after Gregor. I don't think he would shy from confronting the Boltons about their crimes, and I doubt very much that the Boltons win any popularity contests in the North, so they wouldn't find much backing. If word of Ramsay's "sport" had reached Winterfell, there is no way Ned would have let it pass, we are talking brutal murders here. The only way Roose could weasel out of this would be by sacrificing Ramsay and having him killed, along with Reek and perhaps a couple more, so that they told Ned no tales and he could plead ignorance on the matter. Ned would probably have to swallow that but he wouldn't trust Roose in anything ever since. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bel Posted March 20, 2018 Author Share Posted March 20, 2018 Darry, Piper and Vance were there to support their peasants. They were send by Hoster Tully. It wasn't just the word of a few commoners. They had the kind of support that the women who escaped Ramsay lacked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sunland Lord Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 Probably yes. Roose knows how to keep a low profile but Ramsay doesn't. I think that Roose would've killed or gave up Ramsay in a time of peace, since there's no way he could cover up all the crimes his son is doing. Eddard would've probably offer him the black, a Bolton name means something in the North after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bel Posted March 20, 2018 Author Share Posted March 20, 2018 10 hours ago, Nevets said: Roose had been worried about news of his crimes getting out to Lord Rickard, and took measures to keep it quiet. So he was apparently worried about Rickard exerting justice on him. Ned appears pretty aggressive about justice, so I would expect that Ramsay could find himself in trouble should news of his atrocities get out to someone in a position to do something about it. As Warden of the North, Ned has authority over the other Lords with regards to justice (I think). I remember that part but I doubt that Roose really believed it. It was more of a lesson to Ramsay to be more careful. Don't give them reasons to hate you because at some point they will turn against you. I think the way Westeros works is similar to real kingdoms with feudal lords. Both the lords and the king are free up to a point. Both sides have to be careful not to break social norms and of cource not to provoke its other. So while lord Rickard wouldn't act immediatly perhaps he would use it in the future alongside other slights to attack Roose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geddus Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 46 minutes ago, bel said: I remember that part but I doubt that Roose really believed it. It was more of a lesson to Ramsay to be more careful. What do you mean? Ramsay had barely been conceived when it happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorian Martell's son Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 18 hours ago, bel said: Supposedly there is no war or winter. Could Eddard judge and condem Ramsay for the rapes and murders and possibly Roose for covering his crimes? From what Manderly told Davos from time to time a woman will escape him, reach White Harbor and tell them what happened. The Lord Paramount and Warden of the North can judge condemn anyone in the north save members of the royal family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ygrain Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 3 hours ago, bel said: Darry, Piper and Vance were there to support their peasants. They were send by Hoster Tully. It wasn't just the word of a few commoners. They had the kind of support that the women who escaped Ramsay lacked. They weren't first-hand witnesses, though, and neither was Hoster Tully. It was the peasants' testimony that identified Gregor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.