Bronn/Shae double standard v. 2

[The King in the South]

You people are greatly overestimating Shae's influence on the trial. By the time Vary's was out Tyrion had already been convicted, Shae was just a play by Cersei to embaress him.

Some of you guys are acting like she was the sole witness and the trial rested on her testimony

[Catastrophe]

She wasn't the sole witness but her testimony was a very important one. It wasn't just a play to embarass him, it was supposed proof that he'd conspired to kill Joffrey. It might not have been the only thing that got Tyrion convicted, but it did play a key role in convincing the public of his guilt.

One argument I see getting thrown around a lot is that "everyone at the trial lied." This is completely and totally false. In fact, only three characters lied outright, giving accounts of events that never happened: Osmund Kettleblack, Taena Merryweather, and Shae. Varys also lied through omission, relating true facts completely out of context. Boros Blount, Meryn Trant, and Pycelle all tried to paint Tyrion in as negative a light as possible, but nothing they said was untrue except for Pycelle's accusation at the end, which was clearly his opinion and wasn't presented as actual evidence. All of the other witnesses seem to give completely honest and unbiased answers. Balon Swann tries his hardest to portray Tyrion in a positive light, Frenken and Ballabar relate pure facts from a neutral point of view, and most of the unnamed lords and ladies and household servants simply attest that Tyrion was seen near Joffrey's chalice, which was true. There's no evidence that any of them lied or even specifically tried to get Tyrion convicted, they were just honestly relating what they know and what they saw.

[mambru]

Tywin was one of the judges. Cersei was the one who ordered her guards to seize chambermaids and obviously had large part in arranging the testimonies (as evident from her recollection of talking with Shae after the trial). So if she wanted to intimidate Bronn into becoming a withness, she could.

Tywin despises Cersei's capabilities and is very much aware she's a loose cannon. In the books, whenever we've seen Tywin and Cersei together, he makes a point of squashing her initiatives and keeping her in a sulkily subordinate position, which she doesn't have the nerve to rebel against. I highly doubt a control freak like Tywin would allow Cersei to take charge of an affair so important as the trial and condemnation of his son. Also, Tywin was banging Shae. That's a pretty compromising position (so to speak) for a man who's supposed to be merely the judge. I'd say he worked with her pretty closely in preparing her testimony. I'd also think her sexual service to him was her partial payment to Tywin for allowing her to live (her testimony being the other half).

I very much doubt Tywin cared about some sellsword or even a knight.

Bronn told Tyrion after the battle of the Blackwater: "By your lord father's command, I'm Ser Bronn of the Blackwater now, Imp. See you don't forget it." So yes, Tywin did indeed care about Bronn, enough that he took the trouble to knight him to buy his loyalty away from Tyrion. He noted Bronn was not just a good fighter - he was also a capable commander of Tyrion's troops and sellswords. Tywin did not like the idea of his least favorite son getting too powerful, so he drove a wedge between Tyrion and his trusted lieutenant, long before he had to worry about trying Tyrion for murder. Having gone to all that trouble to get Bronn on his side, I think it's perfectly plausible that Tywin wouldn't want to waste a good commander by breaking his will with torture when it was unnecessary.

1. In my opinion a serviceman should NEVER abuse his client's trust and use the private knowledge that he got, to avenge for not giving enough tips or whatever. If a client is a dickhead, don't serve him. Once you choose to do your job you have to do it properly (including keeping the secrets), no matter what.

Really? Well, you're the lawyer; let's use that as an example (though I agree with mediocre cheese that it doesn't make much sense.) If a lawyer were defending a criminal, the criminal has a right to expect that the lawyer will maintain confidentiality, even that the lawyer will be willing to go to jail rather than betray his secrets. HOWEVER, if rival criminals decide they need those secrets and threaten the lawyer with a long-drawn-out unpleasant death if he won't reveal them, does the lawyer have the duty to nobly and painfully die in silence? Or can he say, "Hell, my retainer doesn't cover THIS!" and spill everything? (That's what Shae was up against). If the lawyer does spill under duress, does that make it okay for the client to condemn the lawyer for his betrayal and execute him?

The reason of my disapproval: she lied to sentence to death an innocent person, even two innocent people (+ Sansa), even not having a hint whether they were guilty or not, which is basically a murder, but in some kind of ugly way.

IMO, that crime is mitigated by the fact that if Shae did not do it she would almost certainly be killed herself. It then becomes a choice of "them or me." Now a person may choose to sacrifice their life for a loved one - but that does not apply to Tyrion for Shae. Some people may even sacrifice their lives to help strangers - but those are the heroes and the saints. Shae is neither, but is not being so a crime worth dying for? Not to mention that even if Shae heroically refused to incriminate Tyrion, she wouldn't save him. The Lannisters have made up their mind he's guilty, and if she doesn't testify as coached they'll kill her and get another witness. Quite possibly Shae decided that the only person she could save was herself, and threw herself wholeheartedly into the task. Can't say I blame her.

[Fearsome Fred]

Lord Bronn Stokeworth wrote:

I love how you edited my response in your quote of me to avoid responding to my point.

I mean it's like you don't even want credibility.

For those not wanting to look back:

FF claims clothes and gold are about equally suspicious.

I point out gold easier to hide than clothes.

Those interested in this direct ad-hominem attack on my credibility, and care to examine the evidence, may or may not agree with you that I am indeed a horrible despicable liar.

However, those primarily interested in what relevance this has to ASOIAF may recall that Tyrion took away Shae's clothes AND jewels. Therefore my point stands.

[dark sister]

Lord Bronn Stokeworth wrote:

Those interested in this direct ad-hominem attack on my credibility, and care to examine the evidence, may or may not agree with you that I am indeed a horrible despicable liar.

However, those primarily interested in what relevance this has to ASOIAF may recall that Tyrion took away Shae's clothes AND jewels. Therefore my point stands.

:lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

[MyDogIsNamedDanerys]

She wasn't the sole witness but her testimony was a very important one. It wasn't just a play to embarass him, it was supposed proof that he'd conspired to kill Joffrey. It might not have been the only thing that got Tyrion convicted, but it did play a key role in convincing the public of his guilt.

Actually, I just re-listened to the trial chapters. Shae's testimony is the very last, given alone on the last day, after Tyrion has already discussed Trial by Combat with Oberyn (off-page), and is considering pleading guilty and taking the black. Tyrion thinks that the trial is over, and anything Shae says is irrelevant now - he pities her, he isn't angry that she is testifying, and in fact not surprised. He knows he is condemed after the end of the last chapter, this is very clear in the first few pages of this chapter.

So yes, Shae's testimony is completely unimportant to the case. I do believe her testimony decided Tyrion that he would take the combat approach rather than pleading guilty, but it's clear that Tyrion is only embarrassed, not condemned by her testimony.

[Lord Bronn Stokeworth]

(1)She wasn't the sole witness but her testimony was a very important one. It wasn't just a play to embarass him, it was supposed proof that he'd conspired to kill Joffrey. It might not have been the only thing that got Tyrion convicted, but it did play a key role in convincing the public of his guilt.

One argument I see getting thrown around a lot is that "everyone at the trial lied." This is completely and totally false. In fact, only three characters lied outright, giving accounts of events that never happened: Osmund Kettleblack, Taena Merryweather, and Shae. (2)Varys also lied through omission, relating true facts completely out of context. Boros Blount, Meryn Trant, and Pycelle all tried to paint Tyrion in as negative a light as possible, but nothing they said was untrue except for Pycelle's accusation at the end, which was clearly his opinion and wasn't presented as actual evidence. All of the other witnesses seem to give completely honest and unbiased answers. Balon Swann tries his hardest to portray Tyrion in a positive light, Frenken and Ballabar relate pure facts from a neutral point of view, and most of the unnamed lords and ladies and household servants simply attest that Tyrion was seen near Joffrey's chalice, which was true. There's no evidence that any of them lied or even specifically tried to get Tyrion convicted, they were just honestly relating what they know and what they saw.

1. No. She wasn't. I don't see Tyrion going free if she did not testify or even if she testified in his favor.

2. Lies of omission are still lies. It's the harmful deception that makes lying bad. Not simply saying something not true. Otherwise, most parents (Santa, Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, etc.) and actors are horrible, horrible people.

3. I will agree that most people told the truth, but the questions were slanted to condenm Tyrion.

[Fearsome Fred]

When I point out gold is easier to hide that clothes (the two things you brought up in the section I clearly stated I was responding). You say:

That they are less easy to hide than diamonds.

If I said it in a way that insulted you, I am sorry.

Completely ignore the context of my argument or its validity?

Context is that Tyrion took her clothes AND jewelry. If he took her diamonds, he is unlikely to leave her with a substantial amount of coin.

You may or may not be right that nice clothes are harder to hide and more conspicuous than a stash of gold coin. But it does not help unless you address the diamonds.

Insult me?

I apologize for any insult.

[Lord Bronn Stokeworth]

That they are less easy to hide than diamonds.

If I said it in a way that insulted you, I am sorry.

Context is that Tyrion took her clothes AND jewelry. If he took her diamonds, he is unlikely to leave her with a substantial amount of coin.

You may or may not be right that nice clothes are harder to hide and more conspicuous than a stash of gold coin. But it does not help unless you address the diamonds.

I apologize for any insult.

Telling someone they don't know what they are talking about is insulting. I'm sure you know that. It wasn't the way you told me diamonds are as easy to hide as gold. It was the direct attack on my knowledge and/or intelligence that followed it.

If by chance you are sincere, then know I'm sorry too.

But if you notice I edited my response to you out before you even posted. I'm tired of arguing. Debating is fun, but this is why I slowly come to hate forums and leave.

[Catastrophe]

1. No. She wasn't. I don't see Tyrion going free if she did not testify or even if she testified in his favor.

2. Lies of omission are still lies. It's the harmful deception that makes lying bad. Not simply saying something not true. Otherwise, most parents (Santa, Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, etc.) and actors are horrible, horrible people.

3. I will agree that most people told the truth, but the questions were slanted to condenm Tyrion.

1. It's impossible to know for sure, but she outright stated that Tyrion had conspired to kill Joffrey. That and Taena's claim that Tyrion slipped something in Joffrey's cup were what really sealed the deal, IMO.

2. Yes, which is why Varys, Pycelle, Blount, and Trant are just as guilty as Osmund, Taena, and Shae. My point was that seven people lying is hardly the same as everyone lying, considering there were dozens of witnesses at the trial.

3. Yes, although that's to be expected considering Westerosi law has an apparent policy of "guilty until proven innocent" rather than the other way around. Tyrion himself notes that it's practically impossible for him to disprove the allegations against him, hence why he doesn't have any real defense. It's an extremely flawed system, but that still doesn't justify making the situation worse by outright lying.

[Woman of War]

I do not criticize the statement Shae gives because it might be an important nail to Tyrion's coffin. Obviously he would have been condemned without because the whole trial was orchestrated the way to produce the verdict " guilty".

By my Dog is named.......

Shae's testimony is the very last, given alone on the last day, after Tyrion has already discussed Trial by Combat with Oberyn (off-page), and is considering pleading guilty and taking the black. Tyrion thinks that the trial is over, and anything Shae says is irrelevant now - he pities her, he isn't angry that she is testifying, and in fact not surprised. He knows he is condemed after the end of the last chapter, this is very clear in the first few pages of this chapter.

agree

So Tyrion himself knows that the fact that Shae testifies is of no importance. He recognizes himself that Shae was forced or coerced to testify. But what comes unexpected to him is the heartless cruelty with which Shae decorates her basically unnecessary testimony. I wonder if Shae implicated Sansa out of her free decision or if this had been orchestrated by Tywin or Cersei as well. Certainly Shae did her best to save herself, the cruel topping seemed helpful to her and she had no compunctions to use it. Why she chose to act that way I have described in a former post in this thread, # 2.

So the problem I have with Shae is not the testimony itself but the totall lack of empathy she showed for Sansa and Tyrion by doing that amusing extra decoration stuff. This is lack of basic human decency, something one human being owes any other human being, I had explained Shae's behavior out of her personal biography, see above # 2.

[Arland]

HOWEVER, if rival criminals decide they need those secrets and threaten the lawyer with a long-drawn-out unpleasant death if he won't reveal them, does the lawyer have the duty to nobly and painfully die in silence?

Saul Goodman, breaking bad. I think last episode of 3d season. :)

Anyway: You argument would be totally valid if it were proven that Shae was forced to testify THE WAY SHE DID and had no will in the matter whatsoever. May be she was, maybe she wasn't.

I disagreed with Mediocre Cheese notion (at least as I understood it) that a person providing personal service to a client, owes him nothing. My argument was that prostitute or no prostitute, a person who provides someone some personal service for a considerable amount of times owes him a moral obligation no to run and tell his clients secrets to his worst enemies. For example a lawyer (since I am a lawyer and know how close a lawyer – client relationship can become), or a personal trainer, or a barber…

Nobody is trafficking lawyers. A lawyer doesn't have to worry about violence from a pimp or a john.

And this is relevant, how? You were the one comparing prostitutes to locksmisth. Nobody traffics locksmith either.

The very similar thing in lawyer – client and prostitute - client relationship, which is relevant to our case (as opposed to horrible conditions of prostitutes in general) is the close and personal nature of this relationship. In both kinds of work client trusts the servant more then he would trust some stranger on the street. The reason why I decided to continue with personal trainer/barber idea is because lawyer – client confidentiality is recognized by law, so it could be said to be a "special case, needed for promotion of justice and cet".

Btw, just for your general knowledge, many lawyers can't really afford themselves to choose their clients and sometimes they also get assaulted by them (mostly verbally thou). Client – lawyer violence isn't unheard off as well. And let's not talk about the task of representing mentally unstable client….Somebody has got to do it, you know.

Now, obviously human trafficking is horrible (thou I wouldn't automatically put equation mark between prostitution and victim of human trafficking – the issue is political hot potato). But in my opinion the horror of Shae profession and general position in Westerosi society isn't relevant to her personal moral conduct with regard to Tyrion. That unless you claim the "she was victimized by a society and is allowed to lash back at anybody" claim I have mentioned above. I wouldn't say such claim is entirely without merit, but it raises all kind of other issues…

Unless, you are ready to make such (in my opinion far-reaching) claim, all the use of buzzwords, like "human trafficking" and "sex slave" is populist.

But that obligation isn't increased in any way because they pay you to cut their hair/drive them/cook them food.

Yes and no. You are right about the whole general obligation, and money paid has nothing to do with it. The point is that the fact that you cut their heir/drive them/cook them food or have sex with them, creates a special obligation because otherwise a client would not have divulged you his secrets. You, as a rule don't divulge your secrets to a total stranger, and if you do – you are the one to blame for trusting somebody you know nothing about. But with a personal servant it is different. What I mean is that personal service implies "you wouldn't run and tell my secrets to people" clause, even if it is not written as such into imaginary service agreement.

But why is ultimately irrelevant. Locksmith, lawyer or a prostitute – Shae owed Tyrion (because of nature of her service (as I claim), or basic moral obligation (as you claim) ) not to divulge his secrets.

As for the whole if you don't like your client don't serve them line, again I think this shows a lack of awareness of the lives people in the service industry actually live

Yes. Our economic system is rotten. But does it justify abusing your position to cause personal grief to a "bad" client? Is he the one to blame, that you cannot find work with better conditions? I would say no, barring some very extreme and illegal situations (like using high position to force a worker to have sex and cet)

The whole "lets use westerosi standards" argument eh?

If we will not use westerosi standards, whatsoever, we should condemn all the characters in the book. Each one of them does on daily basis things that we will find barbaric and illegal. Children run alone in the castle with big wolf at their side. Not talking about recruiting 13 years olds into military service. Somebody call child protection services please!!! You cannot ignore cultural context entirely, you must use some kind of fusion of standards

Anyway. You have ignored my initial argument that it was quite clear from a text, that Tyrion took away Shae jewelry and clothes to protect her. And that, only after Shae doesn't agree to leave with all her stuff, but says that she wants to be with Tyrion, no matter the risks. She has agreed to a "amended deal" - she shouldn't blame Tyrion for it.

[Arland]

"Certainly Shae did her best to save herself, the cruel topping seemed helpful to her and she had no compunctions to use it."

I think in this matter Shae asking Cersei for a reward latter is also telling. Even if we assume that she was offered a reward and intimidated as well, and had no choice but to testify, a decent man would not have asked for a reward later. A decent person who is forced to do something horrible, tries to distance himself from the deed as much as possible, and doesn't try to gain from it. If I were in Shae shoes, and were forced under treat of death to perjure Tyrion and humiliate him in a fashion Shae has done, I would have tried to get as far away as possible, from these horrible people and the shame of the deed.

[Elaena Targaryen]

I only have a question, please don't attack. I'm not taking sides and my question would hurt either side, I think. I have read in several threads that Cersei was lobotomizied, (in AFFC maybe) so does anyone think it could be related to her feeling freedom to use her power finally? She was always under somebody elses control to some degree and her father intimiated her greatly. So with his death and sweet little Tommen as king Cersei for the first time got drunk on power. Maybe?

So back OT, I think maybe Cersei didn't force Shae. Cersei still had to answer to her father, the best person to keep her in check. Maybe I misremember, but I don't think she intimadated and torchered at that particular time, it came later. Again just a question, I would appreciate opinions.

[mambru]

I think in this matter Shae asking Cersei for a reward latter is also telling. Even if we assume that she was offered a reward and intimidated as well, and had no choice but to testify, a decent man would not have asked for a reward later. A decent person who is forced to do something horrible, tries to distance himself from the deed as much as possible, and doesn't try to gain from it. If I were in Shae shoes, and were forced under treat of death to perjure Tyrion and humiliate him in a fashion Shae has done, I would have tried to get as far away as possible, from these horrible people and the shame of the deed.

I'm curious. Where did you find the part where Shae demands a reward from Cersei for her testimony? I haven't found it anywhere. Please show us.

IMO, if always-impulsive, grief-crazed Cersei were in sole charge of Shae, she wouldn't be politely negotiating a suitable reward for her brother's whore. Cersei would lop off her head and roll it across the floor of Tyrion's cell before his trial, as a slight expression of her rage. The carefully orchestrated trial, including Shae's testimony, looks to me more like the work of Tywin - which is IMO made more likely by the fact that he is literally in bed with her. Shae may have lied to Tyrion all along about caring about him (which is, as I've said, part of her job description and Tyrion knew it) but I think she was telling the truth at the last of why she testified, "Your father frightens me so."

I mean, Tywin's own children are terrified of him. How much more so would Shae be, knowing that Tywin has a long history of being VERY UNKIND to women he considers whores? I imagine the scene went something like this: Shae is brought before Tywin, who tells her, "I promised my son that I would kill any whore he brought in here. Varys tells me you knew it, but came anyway. You know the Lannisters always pay their debts. Give me a good reason why I should not pay the debt of the death sentence I owe you. Render me services valuable enough that they cancel that debt." I imagine Shae's terrified response would be: "Anything, m'lord. Oh, you want me to testify? I'll say anything you want me to. Make it sound good? He used to like me to call him Giant of Lannister. That good enough? Glad you like it, m'lord. Oh, you want me to undress? Yes, of course, m'lord, yes, m'lord, yes."

I think that's a far more likely scenario than that of a powerless prostitute with no cards up her sleeve driving a hard bargain for a reward from Tywin and Cersei Lannister.

[Gala]

I'm curious. Where did you find the part where Shae demands a reward from Cersei for her testimony? I haven't found it anywhere. Please show us.

Re-read the first Cersei's chapter at AFFC,where she discovers about her father's death. Particularly, she remembers that she saw Shae for the last time a few days ago, when Shae reminded Cersei about her promised reward! It's quite strange that a lowborn sex worker reminded something to a queen.

[dark sister]

Re-read the first Cersei's chapter at AFFC,where she discovers about her father's death. Particularly, she remembers that she saw Shae for the last time a few days ago, when Shae reminded Cersei about her promised reward! It's quite strange that a lowborn sex worker reminded something to a queen.

It sure takes some balls, which ironically Shae had no lack of.