Could Eddard judge the Boltons for their crimes.

[Corvo the Crow]

Yes and no. Roose would simply hand Ramsay over. He may deny and protest it the first time but since Ramsay isn't into "peaceful land and quiet people" Roose will just hand him over the second time.

Can't quote right now but remember his letter about Ramsay in Catelyn chapters and his little chat with New Reek.

Letting Ramsay get justice even has it's benefits for Roose, like being able to marry and get trueborn heirs without worrying about bowel sicknesses.

 

[TheThreeEyedCow]

  Honorable Ned - were he in the north at the time - would of called for the arrest of Ramsey once word of Lady Hornwoods murder/incarceration reached him. Ned shows the reader in agot how he would rule. If he had reports of Roose's bastard committing atrocities he would of sent men to arrest him. Which is exactly how he responds to the Mountain's attacks. If Ned was prepared to arrest Lord Tywin Lannister's chief bully, he wouldn't of been worried about capturing Roose's bastard.

In our short time with Ned, I think we see a man who cares little for politics and is instead heavily invested in duty and justice. He would not abide such a man committing crimes in his kingdom/region. So, for better or for worse, Ned would of at the very least sent for Ramsey regardless of whoever's bastard he was.

As for evidence. Again, the Ned we know takes people at their word (sigh) and would of taken Wyman's words very seriously especially if Lord Locke is standing with him. From there it becomes less about evidence and more about Duty for Ned. We know that houses Cerwyn, Tallhart, Flint(s), Umber would all leap to fight a murderous bastard for their beloved Stark lords. 

Basically, papa wolf went south and emboldened the Boltons. With Ned around, Roose wouldn't even piss in Winterfells direction, let alone upset their leal lords. 

I think Roose's response would of been to cut Ramsey loose and claim he had no knowledge of his bastards actions/treachery.

[bel]

5 hours ago, Geddus said:

What do you mean? Ramsay had barely been conceived when it happened.

He brought it up as an example/advise for Ramsay to be discreet. "Look I raped your mother and killed her husband but no one learned about it." 

[bel]

2 hours ago, Ygrain said:

They weren't first-hand witnesses, though, and neither was Hoster Tully. It was the peasants' testimony that identified Gregor.

Indeed they weren't but since they came along they clearly supported them. I doubt a trial against Roose would have much support from other lords.
It was the part about cutting a horse in half that convinced Ned.

10 hours ago, GallowsKnight said:

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. 

I was never concerned with Jorah's escape but that's a good explanation.

[desire]

22 hours 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. 

I guess Ser Gregor was framed then the plot thickens 

[Geddus]

48 minutes ago, bel said:

He brought it up as an example/advise for Ramsay to be discreet. "Look I raped your mother and killed her husband but no one learned about it." 

But he was talking to Theon, not to Ramsay. Why would he lie to him about fearing rumors that could get to Rickard Stark?

[Stormking902]

13 minutes ago, desire said:

I guess Ser Gregor was framed then the plot thickens 

It wasnt just smallfolk claiming Ser Gregor was behind the attacks in the Riverlands, Piper and another young lord accompanied by smallfolk pleaded to Eddard for justice. So yes Eddard owed the nobility of the Riverlands a duty to arrest and charge Ser Gregor. 

[zandru]

1 hour ago, TheThreeEyedCow said:

Basically, papa wolf went south and emboldened the Boltons. With Ned around, Roose wouldn't even piss in Winterfells direction, let alone upset their leal lords.

Great observation! The evidence continues to pile up that, had Eddard Stark not gone to King's Landing to help his boyhood friend, much tragedy could have been avoided. At least, for the North.

[desire]

1 minute ago, Stormking902 said:

It wasnt just smallfolk claiming Ser Gregor was behind the attacks in the Riverlands, Piper and another young lord accompanied by smallfolk pleaded to Eddard for justice. So yes Eddard owed the nobility of the Riverlands a duty to arrest and charge Ser Gregor. 

“What proof do you have that these were Lannisters?” he asked, trying to keep his fury under control. “Did they wear crimson cloaks or fly a lion banner?

He wondered if the knights had given them a choice.

bring the king’s justice to the false knight Gregor Clegane, and to all those who shared in his crimes. I denounce him, and attaint him, and strip him of all rank and titles, of all lands and incomes and holdings, and do sentence him to death. May the gods take pity on his soul

CSI game of thrones style. Yes We as readers are well aware of who did it 

[bel]

 

23 minutes ago, Geddus said:

But he was talking to Theon, not to Ramsay. Why would he lie to him about fearing rumors that could get to Rickard Stark?

You 're right. My mistake. I thought he told it to Ramsay right after the "Tales are told of you Ramsay." Its been some time since I last read the books. 

He wasn't lying. I doubt he ever worried that Rickard would start a war based on the accusations by the miller's brother but it would cause Rickard to take an interest in Roose's affairs. Start sending spies to his lands, bribing his servants etc. Too much unwanted attention that could lead to strong evidence about some of Roose's other crimes. I doubt it was the first time he raped one of his villagers.

[Geddus]

I agree that Rickard wouldn't start a war based on a rumor but he would investigate, and if he found out that it wasn't a rumor after all, Roose would have been toast. The same applies to Ramsay, I believe, and since he wasn't a major northern lord it would take much less evidence to condemn him than it would for his father.

[Ygrain]

3 hours ago, bel said:

Indeed they weren't but since they came along they clearly supported them. I doubt a trial against Roose would have much support from other lords.
It was the part about cutting a horse in half that convinced Ned.

So you think that the presence of a noble would be the deakbreaker for Ned? If, say, lord Manderly brought the witnesses to Winterfell?

But even if a woman came on her own, I still can't see Ned just dismiss her claim and do absolutely nothing about it. He would at least want to run some investigation before he acted.

[Stormking902]

3 hours ago, desire said:

“What proof do you have that these were Lannisters?” he asked, trying to keep his fury under control. “Did they wear crimson cloaks or fly a lion banner?

He wondered if the knights had given them a choice.

bring the king’s justice to the false knight Gregor Clegane, and to all those who shared in his crimes. I denounce him, and attaint him, and strip him of all rank and titles, of all lands and incomes and holdings, and do sentence him to death. May the gods take pity on his soul

CSI game of thrones style. Yes We as readers are well aware of who did it 

The proof was in the pudding so to speak lol, no man is even close to being the Mountains size then factor in logic of what Cat just did in arresting Tyrion, then factor in the bag of fish and you have Ser Gregor Clegane and Lannister men. Noone else would attack the Riverlands in a time of peace besides Tywin and Eddard acted with great haste in calling for Ser Gregors head because he knew Robert when he returned wasnt going to do a dahm thing. 

[Lord Lannister]

Well living in Ned's shadow much of his life, you can see why Roose thinks it important to be discreet and maintain deniability with his crimes. Ned would have a hard time coming up with any proof regarding him. If Ramsay did something stupid and got caught, Roose would cut him loose in an instant.

[Varysblackfyre321]

5 hours ago, TheThreeEyedCow said:

As for evidence. Again, the Ned we know takes people at their word (sigh) and would of taken Wyman's words very seriously especially if Lord Locke is standing with him. From there it becomes less about evidence and more about Duty for Ned. We know that houses Cerwyn, Tallhart, Flint(s), Umber would all leap to fight a murderous bastard for their beloved Stark lords. 

Basically, papa wolf went south and emboldened the Boltons. With Ned around, Roose wouldn't even piss in Winterfells direction, let alone upset their leal lords. 

No he doesn't. He doesn't swallow whatever lie that he's told. If he did he would've bought Pycelle's kindly old man spell, or really never got ahead in his investigations. He at this point was highly biased against the lanisters(rightfully so), and thus willingly to believe whatever insidious accusation leveled at them. Not to say he had nothing to go on. 

[UnFit Finlay]

8 hours ago, Corvo the Crow said:

Yes and no. Roose would simply hand Ramsay over. He may deny and protest it the first time but since Ramsay isn't into "peaceful land and quiet people" Roose will just hand him over the second time.

Can't quote right now but remember his letter about Ramsay in Catelyn chapters and his little chat with New Reek.

Letting Ramsay get justice even has it's benefits for Roose, like being able to marry and get trueborn heirs without worrying about bowel sicknesses.

 

I totally agree with this.

Look at his reaction to news of Ramsay's "death?" As far he knew his son had been killed, without trial, by a mere Castellan, based on accusations by the Manderleys, who had reason to want "Lord Hornwood" dead. Roose would've been justified in protesting, or even pulling his support for the Starks, but he openly supported it and was all "Yeah. I'm glad he's dead. Screw that guy."

If the Starks wanted Ramsay, especially in a time of peace, I can see him handing him right over.

[Rosetta Stone]

On 3/19/2018 at 10:15 AM, 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.

Absolutely.  As a matter of fact, Ned Stark had a duty to judge them if they violated the law.  Let me repeat, if they violated the law.  You should be asking if it's illegal for Ramsay to kill those girls.  Making them run naked and hunting them is just a technicality.  If he had the right to kill them then it doesn't matter how he did it.  If there is a law that says "a highborn can kill his peasants as long as he doesn't strip them naked and make them run?" then Ned Stark can arrest Ramsay and hold him for judgment.  

[Ygrain]

6 hours ago, Rosetta Stone said:

You should be asking if it's illegal for Ramsay to kill those girls

You're confusing Westeros with Essos. Peasants are not slaves, to be killed off at a whim without anyone batting a lash. Their liege has power over their lives as far as justice, or "justice", goes, but that's it. Killing a peasant for fun is murder, even if performed by a liege, and Ramsay is not a liege. Ned would want his head for what he had done.

[The Commentator]

On 3/19/2018 at 3:40 PM, John Suburbs said:

 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."

Roose would give up Ramsay if it got to that point.  He would become heirless (but that's better than headless).

On 3/19/2018 at 4:26 PM, 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).  

Lady Hornwood will get her day in court, posthumously.  The common girls that Ramsay tortured and murdered won't get any justice.  Equal before the law is too modern.  It's just not that kind of world.  With that being said, it seems to me that Ned Stark ran a tight ship in the north.  Safe enough that a defenseless person could travel the Kingsroad and remain safe.  Credit goes to Ned for maintaining order and keeping people safe.  However, Ramsay is the bastard son of a powerful nobleman.  I don't think Ned is sticking his neck out to pursue justice for those girls.  I may be wrong but that is just my take on that situation.  It's too risky and the nobles try not to step on each other's boots too much. 

On 3/19/2018 at 10:15 AM, bel said:

From what Manderly told Davos from time to time a woman will escape him, reach White Harbor and tell them what happened.

Did the Manderlys report the problem to Ned?  I ask because it would not be fair to hold Ned responsible if he didn't know.  The moral fault would be on the Manderlys.

 

[Free Northman Reborn]

Ned would have executed the Lord of Bear Island for selling a few poachers as slaves. Robb threatened to hang the Greatjon for an oathbreaker if he withdrew his armies from his host. Robb also beheaded Lord Karstark for dishonoring him. Roose was concerned not to let the Starks learn about his exploits on his own lands.

Heck, just look what Tywin did to Houses Reyne and Tarbeck on his own lands, and that was only a few decades ago.

It is clear that a Lord Paramount has full power to exact whatever justice he deems fit on a vassal he is displeased with. The Iron Throne really doesn't seem to feature in any of these affairs.