Bernie Mac Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 24 minutes ago, Clegane'sPup said: Did Manderly actually kill and cook Frey pies? I like subtlety, I like ambiguity, I like leaving things that my readers need to figure out, and some of them will find it, and some of them maybe won't find it and then they'll be discussing it with each other... If we get to Dance with Dragons, the...the...the pies that Lord Manderly serves to the occupiers of Winterfell, that's...Not everybody gets that in the books. - grrm http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/Eastercon_Interview Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sea Dragon Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 46 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said: I like subtlety, I like ambiguity, I like leaving things that my readers need to figure out, and some of them will find it, and some of them maybe won't find it and then they'll be discussing it with each other... If we get to Dance with Dragons, the...the...the pies that Lord Manderly serves to the occupiers of Winterfell, that's...Not everybody gets that in the books. - grrm http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/Eastercon_Interview So Martin admits they are squatters in the Winterfell castle. That means they can't extend rights to anyone and no one can break any rites since none of them should be there. Jon the dragon has every right to burn them out just as Aegon the conquerer did to those that defied him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernie Mac Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 10 minutes ago, Sea Dragon said: So Martin admits they are squatters in the Winterfell castle. No, he calls them occupiers Word forms: plural occupiers 1. countable noun The occupier of a house, flat, or piece of land is the person who lives or works there. Quote That means they can't extend rights to anyone and no one can break any rites since none of them should be there. Does it, I'm not sure we have enough information to say that. In a feudal state most people are occupying castles from the king/lord, surely they'd be expected to honor the custom of guest rights even if they were only the occupants of the castle rather than the owners (such as the Royces of gates of the moon). Guest rights seem to be a custom that everyone believes in, it does not just apply to the 1% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sea Dragon Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 1 minute ago, Bernie Mac said: No, he calls them occupiers Word forms: plural occupiers 1. countable noun The occupier of a house, flat, or piece of land is the person who lives or works there. Does it, I'm not sure we have enough information to say that. In a feudal state most people are occupying castles from the king/lord, surely they'd be expected to honor the custom of guest rights even if they were only the occupants of the castle rather than the owners (such as the Royces of gates of the moon). Guest rights seem to be a custom that everyone believes in, it does not just apply to the 1% oc·cu·pi·er ˈäkyəˌpī(ə)r/ noun plural noun: occupiers 1. BRITISH a person or company residing in or using a property as its owner or tenant, or (illegally) as a squatter. You cannot break guests rights if no one there is a guest. And Manderly brought all the food anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernie Mac Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 23 minutes ago, Sea Dragon said: oc·cu·pi·er ˈäkyəˌpī(ə)r/ noun plural noun: occupiers 1. BRITISH a person or company residing in or using a property as its owner or tenant, or (illegally) as a squatter. ignoring the fact that GRRM is not British, there is a clear 'or' in that meaning. Occupier does not automatically mean squatter. 23 minutes ago, Sea Dragon said: You cannot break guests rights if no one there is a guest Where is this claimed? No one in the books seems to be claiming that the people at winterfell are not protected by guest rights. 23 minutes ago, Sea Dragon said: And Manderly brought all the food anyway. He brought a lot of the food, he did not bring all the food. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fattest Leech Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 41 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said: ignoring the fact that GRRM is not British, there is a clear 'or' in that meaning. To quote the kids of today, I... just... can't... even George is also not a captain on Mississippi steamers, but he sure as hell likes to write about them and gives them accurate dialogue. And since George is not British, does that mean ASOIAF is not really set in quasi-medieval times? Surely GRRM couldn't be using words like ser, southron, and craven, 'cuz he's not a Britisher. I dunno, mayhaps I am wrong, but this seems rather limiting to think someone with a detailed past of studying history could not use accurate words from time to time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernie Mac Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 10 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said: To quote the kids of today, I... just... can't... even seems a mature response. 10 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said: George is also not a captain on Mississippi steamers, well spotted, thanks for clearing that up 10 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said: but he sure as hell likes to write about them and gives them accurate dialogue. what does that have to do with his comments in an interview? are you ssuggestting that GRRM has gone 'method' on us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fattest Leech Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 17 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said: seems a mature response. Glad you picked up on the humor. It certainly beats trying to claim someone like GRRM doesn’t understand vernacular from different countries or time periods. 17 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said: well spotted, thanks for clearing that up what does that have to do with his comments in an interview? are you ssuggestting that GRRM has gone 'method' on us? Have you read any of his other work? He does his research and chooses each word very carefully. Call it “method” if that is your modern term for it, I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernie Mac Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 33 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said: It certainly beats trying to claim someone like GRRM doesn’t understand vernacular from different countries or time periods. whoever claimed that? 33 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said: Have you read any of his other work? this is not from his work, it was from an interview. 33 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said: He does his research and chooses each word very carefully. Call it “method” if that is your modern term for it, I guess. eh? occupants, even in the uk, has more than one meaning. all squatters are occupiers, but not all occupiers are squatters. seadragon doesn't like the fact that guest rights was broken (and in fairness I'm not sure if it was regarding Mance [and I certainly don't think it applies to Jon]) so has decided that GRRM has said something which he clearly did not to try to prove their point. I really don't see the need to be disingenuous with he facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kandrax Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 8 hours ago, Nowy Tends said: You just forget that the "Frey pies" is not an established fact; so far it's only an extremely plausible theory, and even if it's proved true we have two Freys killed – two morons who had the guts to say that Robb Stark was a werewolf , when the Frey killed several thousands "guests". Don't try to sell me Manderly as the bad guy in this story. Martin confirmed it via SSM, and it's three Freys. 7 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said: Manderrly is bad or immoral or a monster is so woefully unfair, if not I don't see any real reason to see Manderly as something else than foul. I would call him stupid because of provoking Hosteen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nowy Tends Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 26 minutes ago, Kandrax said: Martin confirmed it via SSM, and it's three Freys. I would call him stupid because of provoking Hosteen. Ok then. However Frey eating Frey doesn't kill Frey, does it? I don't think Manderly was stupid; to me his provocation was very calculated… Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bemused Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 Maybe adding fuel to the flames, but... oc·cu·pi·er ˈäkyəˌpī(ə)r/ noun 1. BRITISH a person or company residing in or using a property as its owner or tenant, or (illegally) as a squatter. 2. a member of a group that takes possession of a country by force. "the occupiers were reported to have rounded up civilians and carried them off to unknown fates" It's a bit misleading to leave out the second entry since it resonates with what has happened to Winterfell - first occupied by Theon and the Ironborn - now by the Boltons. And I think we can be pretty sure that GRRM uses it in this sense since he wrote the book. And he writes the Boltons as people who are trying to take Winterfell and it's lands based on an illegitimate claim. In medieval society a castle and its lands are like country writ small. Speaking for myself, I would have expected the word occupants to be used if GRRM meant legitimate residents. Look up "Occupant" and you don't get that secondary meaning... Yes the words can be used synonymously (they have the same linguistic origin). But I have to say, I have never used "occupant", or seen it used to convey that secondary meaning Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nowy Tends Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 1 hour ago, bemused said: Speaking for myself, I would have expected the word occupants to be used if GRRM meant legitimate residents. Look up "Occupant" and you don't get that secondary meaning... Yes the words can be used synonymously (they have the same linguistic origin). But I have to say, I have never used "occupant", or seen it used to convey that secondary meaning In France, “l'occupant” (singular) is used to name (globally) the german troups stationed in French territory during WWII. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Varys Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 20 hours ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said: Well, there are Northern lords working with the Boltons and Freys as well, and lords like Piper are hardly jumping for joy at having to be present at the siege. I think both the Northern lords and the River Lords who have bent the knee would probably turn on the Lannisters and Freys given half the chance, though it appears the Northern lords are more actively conspiring. Others have the alternative of Stannis to rally around, which the River Lords lack. There don't seem to be many conspiracies in either regions - Manderly and Glover only conspire because King Tommen no longer has any hostages. And the fact that they do conspire rather than, you know, openly defy the boy king and his deplorable 'Warden' actually shows that they are not exactly prepared to go far for their desire for revenge, etc. 20 hours ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said: That being said, the symbolism of the breaking of guest right is obviously a bigger deal for the Northerners, I completely agree. The basis for this claim of mine comes directly from TWoIaF. It is spelled out there that guest right is more important for the Northmen than the rest of the Seven Kingdoms - but this doesn't mean the others think it is irrelevant. For them breaking it isn't as great a transgression as it is for the Northmen. 20 hours ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said: This I'm not so certain on. The Iron Throne is very reliant on the Freys to control both the Riverlands and the North, where they have enough enemies already. I actually think the plan Cersei and Qyburn came up with - wait for Walder to croak, then allow his heir (who is Edwyn at this stage) to get rid of some enemies by blaming them for the Red Wedding was one of the more sensible notions those two nutters cooked up. It saves having to take on the entire Frey family. Sure, that wasn't all that bad of a plan, but still - there was a double regime change there. Tommen succeeded Joffrey, and Tyrion and Tywin were succeeded by Cersei as the sole power in charge. She could have used that to make a new beginning and actually blame her father and brother for the cruelties of the war, herself making genuine offers of peace and reconciliation. And she could have had success there, I think, with some/many of the Riverlords. Not so much the North, perhaps, but the North isn't all that relevant for the Iron Throne, anyway, The Riverlands are their immediate neighborhood, though. 20 hours ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said: You're right in that, if the Lannisters and the Tyrells were more united, they would have less need of the Freys and the Boltons, but both are still very useful. Particularly in the North. Tywin's plan of letting Roose, Stannis and the Ironborn slog it out through the winter, then mop up afterwards, was sensible. Having to send a Lannister/Tyrell army into that mess would have been needlessly costly. Yeah, the Bolton plan for the North was pretty good. And it might still work considering that Stannis and Roose will bleed the North even further, weakening any resistance the North might be able to muster against both an invasion from the south (in the next spring, of course) as well as the attack of the Others in winter. 20 hours ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said: I don't think he's really a guest at all - he's in their service. A man in your service is effectively your guest, too, if he is living in your home/castle. He isn't as privileged a guest as another nobleman you receive - who then just hangs out with you, doing nothing but eating your food - but he should still enjoy the same protections as such a guest. After all, if you are in the service of a lord you also have a right to not be murdered by said lord on a whim in the middle of the night, etc. Drawing a distinction there doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to me. Especially in light of the fact that Lord Walder and the Freys were also in 'service' of Lord Edmure Tully of Riverrun - their liege lord - as well as King Robb. 19 hours ago, Elaena Targaryen said: We are all spinning our wheels in this thread but does anyone in Winterfell consider the murders to be breaking guest right? Hosteen accused Wyman of ordering murders not of breaking guest right. “My lord,” boomed Hosteen Frey. “We know the man who did this. Killed this boy and all the rest. Not by his own hand, no. He is too fat and craven to do his own killing. But by his word.” He turned to Wyman Manderly. “Do you deny it?” That Hosteen doesn't accuse Wyman of breaking guest right doesn't mean such a murder doesn't constitute a breaking of guest right. As a Frey involved in the Red Wedding Hosteen most likely doesn't care all that much about the breaking of guest right, anyway. 19 hours ago, Elaena Targaryen said: The Rat Cook is a legend, a moral tale; Guest right is sacred. A simple cook slaying a royal guest, tsk tsk. A king is the avatar of the gods, see the gods punishment. See it's proof the Watch should take no part. And so on. We actually don't know whether this is a legend or not. TWoIaF gives puts forth candidates who those Andal kings may have been, possibly indicating that either of these men had some very bad experiences at the Nightfort. This story actually has nothing to do with the Watch not taking part. It is about the consequences of breaking guest right considering that the narrator of the tale doesn't care so much about the murder of the prince or the cannibalism but strictly about the circumstances - host-guest relation - under which the crimes were committed. 19 hours ago, Elaena Targaryen said: Even if it was based on truth we don't know who the cook was, I doubt it but, he could have been the Lord Commander. He could have been the host, since it reads to me that the king was coming to check on and gloat over the cook. It was also said the cook had a right to vengeance against the king and only a high lord would presume that. We don't even know that the guests were royal, or who this king was, it could have been Wat with his brother Wat. We know it was the cook of the Nightfort, not its commander, or the Lord Commander, and we do know that the king was (likely) either an Arryn or a Lannister king. 19 hours ago, Elaena Targaryen said: I just don't think if Roose offers guest right that it means all of his retainers become proxy hosts, or hired help are considered guests. They don't need to since they cannot disobey their lord, they would treat his lordship's person and guests well anyway, most are oathsworn. The lord is responsible for their behavior. Service has it's own separate contract including shelter and protection, temporary or not. What commoner would dishonor any lord, or disrespect them? It is pretty clear that a person in the service of a lord who happens to act as a host or be a guest attending said lord is also bound by guest right. Else the entire construct wouldn't work. If only Lord Walder was bound by guest right then his children and grandchildren - and their servants and retainers - had every right to slay the Starks and Tully, no? 19 hours ago, Elaena Targaryen said: Sorry, but you are conflating matters here to support your view. Dunk ate Osgrey's food as a form of payment. Osgrey owes Dunk meals under terms of service. Guest status does not enter into the equation. Decency was a factor for Dunk staying, not status. I don't see a strong difference between a guest and a retainer in this context. You can, of course, also hang out with a guest who is nothing but a guest but if you host your liege lord or king you are also bound by oath to him that still allows you to be a host and your liege/king to be your guest. And a person living in your home is, by and far, in any meaning of the word your guest considering that the person doesn't permanently live there. 19 hours ago, Elaena Targaryen said: He ate four of the eggs. Ser Eustace owed him that much, as he saw it. “I slept beneath your roof, and ate your eggs this morning. I owe you some service still. I won’t go slinking off with my tail between my legs. My sword’s still here.” This is Cat and Brienne "Then I am yours, my lady. Your liege man, or . . . whatever you would have me be. I will shield your back and keep your counsel and give my life for yours, if need be. I swear it by the old gods and the new." "And I vow that you shall always have a place by my hearth and meat and mead at my table, and pledge to ask no service of you that might bring you into dishonor. I swear it by the old gods and the new. Arise." Cat's and Brienne's bond is stronger than the temporary bond between Eustace and Dunk, and it is quite clear that it is only a promise that Brienne would be ever welcome at Cat's table. Under certain conditions she would most likely not be welcome there. Speaking about TSS again - Bennis of the Brown Shield clearly broke guest right, too, when he remained behind and stole all of Osgrey's possessions while they were away. He did also betray the trust of his employer, of course, but he was also a guest at Standfast. 19 hours ago, Elaena Targaryen said: Yes, it seems breaking guest right is it's own violation separate from the act that breaks it. House Frey seems accused of breaking guest right by betraying House Stark while simultaneously being called murders. In legal terms murder is punishable by men but is the same true for breaking guest right? I don't think so. I'm pretty sure it can - and is severely punished. Imagine the retainer of a lord attacking the guest of his lord. That would be breaking guest right, so the lord in question is most likely going to severely punish - perhaps even execute - the man in question so that nobody gets the impression the man acted on his lord's command - meaning the lord himself broke guest right. 19 hours ago, Elaena Targaryen said: Per the Rat Cook fable the gods hold only the violator responsible. The cook must have some host status but in what context? Who offered the protection? Was it a blanket coverage from the organization? Was the Lord Commander punished or shunned? We don't know. What we do know is that the cook killed a prince and fed it to his father, violating guest right in this context. 19 hours ago, Elaena Targaryen said: Look at the Red Wedding, who is blamed? The Freys, not the Freys and minions. It happened on the orders of the presiding lords. Is that who the gods would blame? Who is the host, who broke custom, who killed? I don't find it all so clear cut but we know who society blames. They are all to blame there, and Cat is seeing to it that they all get their due. Walder, Roose, and Lothar are the ones to blame the most, but any Frey or Frey retainer taking up arms against the Starks and Tullys is guilty and is treated as such. Even those knowing about the whole thing and not doing anything to prevent it or warn the victims of the crime are to blame. 19 hours ago, Elaena Targaryen said: Was this breaking guest right? Guest against guest? In a sense, yes. When you are the guest of a person all the guests are under the protection of guest right, not just one guest and the host. We see how this goes at Vaes Dothrak, for instance. You keep the peace there, period, not just been individual khals and the dosh khaleen, but among all the people there. Sure, it is not the same as guest right in Westeros, but it is a similar custom. 19 hours ago, Elaena Targaryen said: I really should decide where I stand on Jon but... even though I like him he's boring. I may have to since I do not believe Marsh was legally justified. The Watch is military order, you can't kill your commander with impunity. The Watch is an order that follows a specific purpose. The idea that the sworn brothers have to do or condone everything the Lord Commander says doesn't make any sense, nor does it make sense that they should sit on their hands and watch while the Lord Commander (and his cronies) make plans to attack the North - or any other 'realm of men'. If they do that they risk being seen as a oathbreakers and traitors, too, once the rulers of the realms of men have dealt with the treasonous Lord Commander. The Watch has a specific purpose - and any Lord Commander going against that purpose (or being seen as going against that purpose) can, in my opinion, be killed by his men. One can debate whether Marsh's assessment of the situation was correct, but I think a case can be made that it was. 19 hours ago, Elaena Targaryen said: Warden, in story, means war leader. The LC is like a Warden of the Wall. But, the difference is the Watch has a voting system, there could be alternatives to murderous mutiny. The Lord Commander is chosen for life. And since it is a military order you cannot really disobey on order, especially not if the treasonous Lord Commander has enough cronies and corrupt people around him following his interpretation of the duties of the NW. 19 hours ago, Elaena Targaryen said: Wasn't there also something about Cersei trying to get someone to kill Jon on the sly too? I really should look into this more.... Nothing came of that. She intended to send Osney Kettleblack to the Wall after Margaery had been successfully executed. But that never happened. 20 hours ago, Tagganaro said: Maybe? I'm not sure you can really say that Guest right is less important in the south, for example Doran Martell refuses unconditionally to harm Balon Swann while he's a guest of his due to Guest right. There are numerous other instances of southern Lords invoking Guest right I think although I don't have them off the top of my head. See above. The breaking of guest right is not seen as being as vile a crime in the south as it is in the North. But it exists everywhere as a custom and it is clearly 'bad form' to break it - and perhaps even more so in the wake of the Red Wedding than it had been before. The source for this difference in custom is Yandel in his section on the North in TWoIaF. He should know how people tick in Westeros. 20 hours ago, Tagganaro said: Again, I'll say that I'm not sure Tyrion broke "guest right" in the Westerosi conception. From what we know of it it only runs from host to the guest and not vice versa...I'll dare say that we have not seen a single instance of a guest being able to violate guest right...indeed you could argue it should be called "host right" if it actually exists. In any case, we are in agreement that regicide, kingslaying, and kinslaying are more all-consuming in Tyrion's case and violation of guest right is low on that list. That doesn't make any sense in the medieval concept this whole thing is based on. In medieval times there was always a truce between hosts and guests in such situations as weddings, celebrations, meetings at formal occasions, etc. In times where there is no central power strong enough to ensure that laws are upheld but power is shared by a group of aristocrats a man's word was basically the only guarantee that you wouldn't be murdered at a negotiation, wedding, funeral, etc. The idea that only a host is in the position to harm/kill a guest but not vice versa doesn't make any sense to me. A powerful guest certainly has the power to overwhelm a weak host - thus this would be definitely be a relationship based on mutual trust. 20 hours ago, Tagganaro said: Well of course it's the people mainly affected by the Red Wedding that are most outraged by it...however that doesn't change the fact that it's still an outrageous thing to do, and we really have no perspective at all of the Stormlands and the Reach since we have no POVs there. What we do know is that Guest right is still considered important enough in Dorne and the Vale for it to be observed by both Doran Martell and Littlefinger/the Lords Declarant. It is commented on, but nobody talks about killing the Freys for it, no? They have made themselves impossible with that action, but they did not outlaw themselves - at least no yet. We have to wait and see how Aegon or Daenerys deal with the Freys later on. 20 hours ago, Tagganaro said: Sure. We don't have to like Walder Frey and we are not supposed to like him, everything about his personality and description is designed by GRRM to be loathsome. But you can be sure that it'd be far less heinous of him to go about killing Robb in a way different from the Red Wedding. I actually find Lord Walder not that loathsome back in AGoT. He is not very sympathetic but he is honest about what he wants and what he has issues with. He is actually a rather, well, easy customer if you met his terms and treat him the way he wants to be treated. The Freys are among Robb's strongest supporters until Robb spits in their face. 20 hours ago, Tagganaro said: Furthermore, I don't see where Manderley comes into this in terms of comparing the two. Manderley's violence is a direct response to the murder of his son at the Red Wedding and now you have the culprits responsible showing up and basically rubbing his face in it and the fact that his other son is a hostage of the King. Plus, Manderley makes sure to observe the "technicalities" of guest right just to further throw it in the Freys' faces. I mean, that doesn't really matter much in the grand scheme but it just shows that Manderley is going about seeking revenge. Manderly came up because the whole Frey pie thing at Ramsay's wedding is pretty much the same thing the Rat Cook did - the only difference is that Manderly is a guest, and the Boltons are the hosts. The killing of the Freys may not be a breaking of guest right but it is still murder and a betrayal of trust. The Freys were all assholes, sure, but they Manderly pretended to bend the knee, made promises, etc. and then he butchered them, ate them, and fed their remains to their kin. Revenge is part of his motivation, but the Iron Throne actually sent back his elder son and is willing to work with him. They offer him peace - he is the one rejecting it, not King Tommen, the Boltons, or the Freys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackfish Tully Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 29 minutes ago, Lord Varys said: I actually find Lord Walder not that loathsome back in AGoT. He is not very sympathetic but he is honest about what he wants and what he has issues with. He is actually a rather, well, easy customer if you met his terms and treat him the way he wants to be treated. The Freys are among Robb's strongest supporters until Robb spits in their face. was he honest when he agreed to Robb's terms on Edmure's wedding and then had 3000 men murdered ? 30 minutes ago, Lord Varys said: The killing of the Freys may not be a breaking of guest right but it is still murder and a betrayal of trust. The Freys were all assholes, sure, but they Manderly pretended to bend the knee, made promises, etc. and then he butchered them, ate them, and fed their remains to their kin. Revenge is part of his motivation, but the Iron Throne actually sent back his elder son and is willing to work with him. They offer him peace - he is the one rejecting it, not King Tommen, the Boltons, or the Freys. The Freys murdered his son and other Manderly men at the Red Wedding and then had the nerve to go the White Harbor and lie and gloat about what they did . It's kinda of hard to have sympathy for them . Walder Frey murdered 3000 men because of a broken wedding promise while Manderly murdered three men because they were involved in the murder of his son and other Manderly soldiers , Manderly's actions are much more understandable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Commentator Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 On 4/22/2018 at 8:54 PM, 867-5309 said: I don't think those were the precise reasons why his men killed him though. They killed him to stop him from leading the wildlings to attack the Boltons. That would cause too many problems for the watch and compromise their ability to stop the White Walkers. The wildlings may decide to ride out even without Jon. Unfortunately, the Watch do not have enough men to stop them. But they can send a message to the Boltons and give them advance warning. Sort of an apology for what their nutty lord commander did. The Boltons don't want this fight. The Watch can't afford this fight. Jon will be considered a pariah in the north if he should come back to life. What he did at the wall and his part in the wedding of the wildlling to a lady will not be well received. That basically gave her family lands to a wildling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shouldve Taken The Black Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 1 hour ago, Lord Varys said: There don't seem to be many conspiracies in either regions - Manderly and Glover only conspire because King Tommen no longer has any hostages. And the fact that they do conspire rather than, you know, openly defy the boy king and his deplorable 'Warden' actually shows that they are not exactly prepared to go far for their desire for revenge, etc. I think there might be more Northern lords in on the Glover/Manderly conspiracy. To what degree I don't know. There are Northern lords openly defying the Boltons with Stannis, and others playing both sides. How linked up all that is is at the moment an open question of course. 1 hour ago, Lord Varys said: The basis for this claim of mine comes directly from TWoIaF. It is spelled out there that guest right is more important for the Northmen than the rest of the Seven Kingdoms - but this doesn't mean the others think it is irrelevant. For them breaking it isn't as great a transgression as it is for the Northmen. Sorry, yes it is in TWOIAF, and I agree it doesn't make it irrelevant to others. It's a matter of degrees. I think we're on the same page there. 1 hour ago, Lord Varys said: Sure, that wasn't all that bad of a plan, but still - there was a double regime change there. Tommen succeeded Joffrey, and Tyrion and Tywin were succeeded by Cersei as the sole power in charge. She could have used that to make a new beginning and actually blame her father and brother for the cruelties of the war, herself making genuine offers of peace and reconciliation. And she could have had success there, I think, with some/many of the Riverlords. That's not a bad idea, but whether many Riverlords would actually buy it is a different question. Most would see it as a blatant blame shift. 1 hour ago, Lord Varys said: if you are in the service of a lord you also have a right to not be murdered by said lord on a whim in the middle of the night, etc. I don't know about that. Lords seem to have pretty much carte blanche to exact justice, including capital punishment, on their inferiors. Any idea of guest right would muddy the waters somewhat. In a literal sense, once someone is living and working somewhere, they're no longer really a guest, they're a resident. 1 hour ago, Lord Varys said: Especially in light of the fact that Lord Walder and the Freys were also in 'service' of Lord Edmure Tully of Riverrun - their liege lord - as well as King Robb. Exactly. He was their guest. If they were in Riverrun, and Edmure or Robb sentenced Walder to death for some kind of treachery, that wouldn't be a violation of guest right. Lord Karstark's execution wasn't a violation of guest right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueMetis Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 On 4/17/2018 at 7:41 AM, Wolf's Bane said: Mance lied and presented himself as a traveling entertainer (bard). Let's follow this line of reasoning and see where it goes shall we? Assuming that this is in fact a thing, it might not be after all no one said Bael the Bard violated guest right, and he both lied about his name and appeared to have kidnapped the lords daughter, what is definitely important writ names is "Arya's". Since Ramsay married an "Arya Stark" who was in actuality Jeyne Poole he is not actually married to her. And this is important because several of you seem to be under the impression that being married means the man can do whatever he wants to his wife. Since there's no marriage, and Jeyne hasn't done anything to be deserving of being a prisoner, she is a guest of Ramsay. You can all see where this is going right? Ramsay has by this point spat in the face of guest rights in the most heinous way possible and shown is word to be shit several other ways previously, hence as he clearly cannot be trusted to hold up his side of the bargain, no one can be expected to hold up theirs. Mance did not violate guest right because there is no guest right to violate. Not that I really care either way, if the gods think I can't fight against the murderous, torturing rapist because he gave me some bread well then fuck the gods, and fuck anyone who thinks like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sea Dragon Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 12 hours ago, Bernie Mac said: ignoring the fact that GRRM is not British, there is a clear 'or' in that meaning. Occupier does not automatically mean squatter. 10 hours ago, Bernie Mac said: whoever claimed that? this is not from his work, it was from an interview. eh? occupants, even in the uk, has more than one meaning. all squatters are occupiers, but not all occupiers are squatters. seadragon doesn't like the fact that guest rights was broken (and in fairness I'm not sure if it was regarding Mance [and I certainly don't think it applies to Jon]) so has decided that GRRM has said something which he clearly did not to try to prove their point. I really don't see the need to be disingenuous with he facts. Honestly, not to sound rude, but you claimed that in one of your first posts. I posted it above. Sorry, I am not as good as some here that are really good with working the quote system. 6 hours ago, bemused said: Maybe adding fuel to the flames, but... oc·cu·pi·er ˈäkyəˌpī(ə)r/ noun 1. BRITISH a person or company residing in or using a property as its owner or tenant, or (illegally) as a squatter. 2. a member of a group that takes possession of a country by force. "the occupiers were reported to have rounded up civilians and carried them off to unknown fates" It's a bit misleading to leave out the second entry since it resonates with what has happened to Winterfell - first occupied by Theon and the Ironborn - now by the Boltons. And I think we can be pretty sure that GRRM uses it in this sense since he wrote the book. And he writes the Boltons as people who are trying to take Winterfell and it's lands based on an illegitimate claim. In medieval society a castle and its lands are like country writ small. Speaking for myself, I would have expected the word occupants to be used if GRRM meant legitimate residents. Look up "Occupant" and you don't get that secondary meaning... Yes the words can be used synonymously (they have the same linguistic origin). But I have to say, I have never used "occupant", or seen it used to convey that secondary meaning The Starks are kind of boring, especially Arya, and I hope I am not sounding like I am one of these blind defenders of them. I think Jon will end up as the consort to Queen Danaerys in the end. But there is a difference to be made here in the story and that is the Boltons usurped their seat in Winterfell, therefore they are squatters and they have no rights to anything. Theon was the last one to take Winterfell by conquest because he never lied at who he was. He was always Theon Greyjoy but in the last book he says he always wanted to be a Stark, so we might see that turnaround. Ramsay and Roose have done nothing but lie the whole way and create a mummer;s show of their house name and mission. Ramsay isn't even a legally legitimized Bolton. I do not understand how there are so many people defending the clear villains of the story. I guess one of the villains. u·surp yo͞oˈsərp/ verb take (a position of power or importance) illegally or by force. "Richard usurped the throne" synonyms: seize, take over, take possession of, take, commandeer, wrest, assume, expropriate "Richard usurped the throne" take the place of (someone in a position of power) illegally: supplant. "the Hanoverian dynasty had usurped the Stuarts" synonyms: oust, overthrow, remove, topple, unseat, depose, dethrone; More archaic encroach or infringe upon (someone's rights). "the Church had usurped upon the domain of the state" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varysblackfyre321 Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 On April 24, 2018 at 3:08 AM, Lord Varys said: Again, the people at Winterfell under Roose's rule did eat a lot of stuff there. Didnt say he did. On April 24, 2018 at 3:08 AM, Lord Varys said: Mance and his women especially, before they got around to murder the men or make plans to get 'Arya' out of the castle. And the idea that Roose doesn't know what guest right means - and doesn't make use of that fact - is, quite frankly, very unrealistic. We don't know what Roose talked to the various lords coming to Winterfell behind closed doors - in fact, Theon doesn't give us any scene depicting the arrival at Winterfell and the subsequent interactions there between Roose and the various lords. Perhaps an error on Martin's part, perhaps Roose considers the food Manderly brings to be able qualify as a offering if redistributed by Roose or he simply doesn't rely on mores in terms of visiting to be adequate protection. On April 24, 2018 at 3:08 AM, Lord Varys said: And one should never over-emphasize the guest right thing, anyway. Food or not, Mance was on the verge of killing Jon when he learned that the boy had lied about Mormont's mission beyond the Wall, and Lord Borrell most definitely would have sold Davos to Cersei had it turned out the Lord Sunderland had found out that Davos was there before the man could leave, etc. It is up to a host to decide how long a guest remains a guest, and whether his status as a guest ends with him becoming either a prisoner or a corpse (baked into some pies) Yes, certain circumstances people are going to be willingly to break this cardinal-it doestnt mean it's seen as great sin to do so. I believe Mance would murder Jon guest right or not it served to help secure the anarcal way of life of the wildlings. He's shown no care forthoughtsof the gods through his willful abandoment of the oaths he swore to them with his excuse being in my opion one of the weakest excuses for desertion we've seen. On April 24, 2018 at 3:08 AM, Lord Varys said: t is what I said above somewhere - anybody believing the good guys will win this war by remaining good guys is fooling himself or herself. Wyman Manderly is a great example of this - I found it great how he revealed what he is actually about - but I would not want to share a meal or be on amiable terms with a man as corrupt and insidious as he is. Yes-it appears he's not truly motivated by anything higher than his own want for revenge to which he guises with the pretesne of doing what he's doing for the North and Stark dynasty. Which is nice-not all the pro-Stark forces are doing it out of pure love to the family; a fair chunk is at least partially self-interested. On April 24, 2018 at 3:08 AM, Lord Varys said: I'm also looking forward to what Catelyn is going to do to Emmon and Genna (and I really want to see her make Jaime watch, just as he watched back then when Aerys II killed Brandon and Rickard) and all the other Freys and Lannisters in the Riverlands. But I'm also aware that those will be very, very cruel things, things that might go well beyond anything we expect to do 'good guys' - or even formally good guys. I'm hoping to see someone call out the BWB's hypocrisy much like Cleagane did when they tried pretend what they were doing their Robin Hood act for the king while actively working against the entities who were fighting on behalf of Joffery Baratheon the boy who for all they knew was the true born son of Robert and thus the king. And then have think to murder a man whose related to someone they dont like and when pointed out how ridiculous that is they then charge him having killed someone who the king had ordered Cleagane to get for having assaulted the crown prince and who had tried to flee justice. And now they're steadily dropping the whole Robin Hood-and now are killing some of the noble parties to which participated in the redwedding. Their desire for blood and revenge has them lose sight of what they were supposed to, what their mission was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.