Jump to content

the trees have eyes

Members
  • Content count

    1,765
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About the trees have eyes

  • Rank
    Council Member

Recent Profile Visitors

2,310 profile views
  1. the trees have eyes

    Dany and child murder

    Deliberately left vague iirc. She certainly associates it with the ruling class but whether it is a garment restricted to a certain class or caste within society or something anyone can wear if they can afford it is something GRRM doesn't elaborate on (bear in mind that certain modes of dress or colours, e.g. the imperial purple, were reserved for the elite or certain social ranks in hierarchical societies). It really depends on how you want to interpret her judgment and that is subjective. I find it as unlikely that her command resulted in the slaughter of thousands of butchers, bakers and candlestick makers who were going about their day to day business wearing their third best tokars as her command to slay every man holding a whip resulted in the execution of every cart driver, swineherd, self-flagellating penitent or lion tamer within the walls of Astapor. Nor do I think she particularly had it in for 12 year old tokar-wearing cart drivers. Her intent is clear: to wreak revenge on the monstrous group of oligarchs who trade in human flesh, castrate and brutalise thousands of young boys and turn them into dull-sensed, emotionless puppy-strangling baby killers. The instructions are threefold on who to kill, who to spare and who to free. She has been in Astapor for a while and has a greater feel for the tokar-wearing elements that the reader but she is still an outsider so is she right and how effectively are her instructions carried out by the Unsullied? It's up to the reader. I can't think of anything that establishes the age of criminal responsibility in story let alone in Slaver's Bay. Certainly boys in Westeros would squire or take part in combat in their teens and Barristan was only ten when he turned up at his first tourney (admittedly to general mirth). In medieval England 12 was the age of criminal responsibility at which point the child would be held responsible for their actions as an adult. I imagine this is what GRRM is basing this on. Based on the above, yes they would. In our terms this would be child murder but historically this of course depended on the place and the era. Clearly Dany is intentionally avoiding the murder of children so I don't think it illuminates her actions or her intent to apply our threshold of age and responsibility. She only thinks he looks younger in death than he was (a common observation at least in literature to enforce the waste of a life and prospects of an early death). She stipulated that the gladiators all be volunteers as a condition of allowing the fighting pits to re-open so it is likely she was expecting physically robust specimens in their prime like Drogo or Strong Belwas rather than youths. The contrast is to reinforce her dismay at the pointlessness of it and her guilt at allowing the pits to reopen - she feels this on her. You could however accuse her of a bias colouring how she looks at the "unnecessary" death of the "innocent" gladiator compared with her ordering the "deserving" deaths of the 12+ year old "tainted" Astapori. But given she is 14 at the point of the quotes and was married off at 13 (and pregnant, miscarried and then widowed at 13) I think we have to accept she has a clear understanding of what the age boundary between childhood and adulthood is and is not making it up on the fly, 12 one day, 16 the next, who knows when tomorrow (even if that boundary makes us uncomfortable and is different to our own). No. Dany saved Mirri's life. Mirri may have interpreted that as her becoming the property of Dany but Dany never thought of it as such. It's perhaps pointless to conjecture how the relationship between Dany and Mirri might have played out if Mirri had realised Dany viewed her as under her protection rather than as her property and that she was free to go her way when they reached some outpost of civilization not likely to be sacked by the Dothraki but she is not actually a slave. And Mirri wasn't interested in striking at Dany, she saw an opportunity to strike down the Khal who sacked her village and burned her temple and to neutralize his heir to boot. Dany was just collateral damage in the way. Do I understand why she did this? Absolutely but I don't expect Dany to give her a pass for it. Remember also that Dany called an amnesty after the sack of Meereen so that those who rose up to help her capture the city would not be punished for their assistance or any of the excesses in the sack (which would of course have made her hated equally by the citizens and ex-slaves). There's no amnesty for Mirri to look to so her murder of Rhaego is not something Dany is compelled to overlook.
  2. the trees have eyes

    Fair Compensation for House Frey

    Of course there are written laws. Renly is Master of Laws. That doesn't mean he makes it up as he goes along. Serving in the KG is bound by oath: to break that oath is both a crime and treason. To dismiss Barristan is a precedent but nothing more than that.
  3. the trees have eyes

    Fair Compensation for House Frey

    You make blanket statements that overly simplify more complex or variable situations. Some customs have the force of law, others don't. A vow from KG to king cannot be broken by the KG without him being an oathbreaker and a traitor but the king can release the KG from his vow and his service without breaking any vow (he made none) or any law (there is none). The fact that no one did this before makes it a precedent but there is nothing to prevent it. Custom in this case is how people have done things before, rather than a law or vow that exists to require or prohibit a certain course of action.
  4. the trees have eyes

    Fair Compensation for House Frey

    Still equating tyranny with kingship it seems. Aerys thought he was above the law too. Having the power to get away with breaking the law, whether your own recent edicts or laws handed down from time immemorial, is not a legal argument or the operating principle of a legal system, it's an abuse of power. It goes on until someone with more power deposes you. Robert breaking or ignoring laws - or not being able to in your view - does not offer any useful information as to whether Cat's actions were legal or not. Quite obviously the only reason we are having this conversation at all is based on Tyrion's social status and the political ramifications of arresting him. If Cat had arrested Joe Bloggs the miller's son or pursued the assassin from Winterfell and arrested him in the Inn no one would be arguing that it's illegal. An argument based on power politics raises many genuine considerations but not those of legality. By custom the KG serve for life, there is no law that requires it. The vow from KG is a vow like from retainer to lord, or in this case vassal to king to serve him in a particular capacity. Joffrey released Barristan from his vow and dismissed him from his service. That's a precedent, it's not a crime.
  5. the trees have eyes

    Fair Compensation for House Frey

    That worked really well for Aerys Targaryen. What you are really saying is that the king can get away with ignoring or flat out breaking the law up to a point. That argument says nothing about what the actual law is. Laws existed before Robert took the throne and existed after he died: it was his responsibility to his subjects to enforce them. He did a shitty job.
  6. the trees have eyes

    Fair Compensation for House Frey

    And yet all the retainers in the Inn answer her call. She accuses him of attempted murder and they all respond to that. They must know something you don't. Without any accusation, without any scars on her hands to convince the bystanders of the case she made you might be able to call it kidnapping but it's an arrest and she publicly explains the grounds for the arrest - attempted murder - before ordering them to take him into custody. Robert considered it a problem he didn't want to have to face up to and like all his problems he just wanted it to go away as soon as possible. He didn't even listen to Ned's attempted explanation as to why Catelyn took Tyrion, he just brushed it aside. Robert's disinterest in bothering with troublesome matters of justice as with all troubling matters of kingship is not a compelling legal argument, it's an argument for his negligence or incompetence. She arrested him in Robert's name and explained the reason for the arrest. That's fairly routine behavior for dealing with criminals. The only rub is of course that Tyrion is innocent but she arrests him pending trial, arrest and trial being equally parts of the system of justice. No one can abduct anyone legally under any circumstances so let's not confuse an arbitrary seizure of an individual - say, Lady Hornwood by Ramsay Bolton - with the arrest of a criminal suspect. Well, sort of. The king is supposed to be the apex of the legal system and the ultimate guarantor and arbiter of justice but nothing stops a king doing a shitty job of that or completely ignoring the law if he finds it inconvenient or too troublesome to follow. I've stated my opinion on Robert's actions above and it's not that Cat is wrong to arrest a man accused of murder, it's that he doesn't want to have to deal with a problem. He is not remotely interested in what Ned has to say and is probably completely unaware that Tyrion is accused of attempting to kill Ned's son. If he is aware then his response is even more negligent because he does absolutely nothing to try and determine the facts and to see justice done. So it's nothing to do with the law or justice, it's all about Robert waving away a problem so he can get on with the next banquet or hunt or affair. I don't think so. Ned is caught unawares as this is not what he and Cat had planned. He is attempting to regain control of the situation by owning the arrest and explaining what grounds Catelyn had for apprehending Tyrion, hoping to be able to appeal to deal with the situation with Robert directly. However it's something Robert does not care to hear and buggers off hunting hoping the problem will have gone away by the time he gets back. Oh, she had a right to arrest him. He should have been detained in comfort rather than the sky cell at the Eyrie but that is on Lysa, not Cat. She took him to the Eyrie as otherwise he would have been seized by force. Quite why Lannister forces would have been able to overtake her if she headed for Winterfell or Riverrun is a plot device but she wanted to gain Lysa's evidence at the same time. Not taking him to KL is borne out by Robert's approach to the whole incident which is to not give a shit about justice and hope it all goes away. She needs Lysa's evidence to be able to force even a drunken oaf like Robert to actually uphold the laws he is supposed to care about and dispense justice even when it's difficult. Well if it wasn't clear: the point is that Cat is invested with authority due to Ned's appointment as Hand of the King. She is now his regent in the North and has full plenipotentiary powers to exercise justice in his stead, powers delegated by Robert to Ned and by Ned to her. This is the matter of whether she has any legal right to make arrests and exercise authority. It's true that she is in the Riverlands rather than the North and the men around are not her oathsmen and so are not bound to obey her. But they are her father's oathsmen which makes an appeal to his retainers from one of his blood (and touching an attempted murder of his grandson) as good as a command. Only the Freys demure (as if the author was trying to tell us something about them). For the rest Cat's commands are as good as they would be at Winterfell and only Hoster, Edmure or their own liege lords could intervene or countermand them. The laws are the same throughout the realm and the resident nobility enforce them. Either the Lady / Lord of the lands the inn is in or some representative of them is summoned to conduct the arrest or someone acts in their place: in this case a daughter of Hoster Tully arrests him and cites King Robert as her ultimate authority. Ned is deflecting Robert's ire on to himself as he is at hand and can better manage Robert if Robert is focused on him. As he is present he can explain things rather than having Cat's actions a mystery and some arbitrary inexplicable brigandage. This is about managing Robert not about legal arguments. But stuff like that is too hard for Robert to face up to so he sticks his fingers in his ears, wallops Cersei, curse Ned and goes hunting. It's not irrational though, it's a deliberate and carefully reasoned decision though one that had to be made quickly. What she feared was that Tyrion would alert the twins to her secret visit and plot or even strike against Ned with him all unaware of her visit being discovered, the sort of mayhem he might accomplish being clear in her mind with the attack on Bran, to say nothing of what he might achieve in cahoots with his siblings. What she hoped was to forestall that danger to Ned and neutralize Tyrion's threat by taking him out of play and that by travelling to the Eyrie she would obtain useful evidence from Lysa against the Lannisters concerning the murder of Jon Arryn to supplement her (false and planted) evidence against Tyrion for the attack on Bran. Does Robert even know what Tyrion is accused of? "Damn her reasons" is his response to Ned's attempt to explain. Robert's response is everything to do with being presented with a problem he doesn't want to deal with and overruling her without any interest in knowing what is happening. Equally does Ned think it "illegal" or inopportune? Ned's response is all about the fact that it is too soon and that they do not have the evidence - or are assured that Robert will want to know and act on the truth - and to do with crisis management and dealing with Robert directly, an appeal to Nedbert. Let's not forget that Ned's men were killed around him and his own leg shattered, that he was unconscious for days and that he is too weak to get out of bed when Robert comes to see him: he's thinking on his feet and trying to find the best way of getting Robert out of Cersei's clutches and to counter for the days that Cersei has had to whisper in his ear so he owns Cat's action and tries to explain it. The story doesn't really need to give us didactic examples outside the plot but if a widow can exercise power as a regent for her son (Cersei) or a wife act as a regent for her husband (Catelyn) then it follows that in his absence (temporary or permanent) a wife can wield her husband's authority. Selyse acting in Stannis's name at The Wall for example. If you want an example of a noblewoman seizing someone then take Lady Tarbeck capturing Stafford Lannister in retaliation for Tytos Lannister detaining her husband. Of course that incident was a genuine kidnapping, was completely illegal and was purely designed to secure a bargaining chip but no one disputed her authority as a mere "wife" rather than a surrogate authority for her husband.
  7. the trees have eyes

    Fair Compensation for House Frey

    There is no police in Westeros. Lords exercise justice in King Robert's name and use their own retainers to enforce the laws and effect that justice if necessary, in other words, routinely. In the tricky case of being confronted outside Stark lands with a powerful and well-connected man she has been led to believe attempted to murder her son and with only Ser Rodrik to hand, Cat arrests him on her authority as Lady of Winterfell (she speaks in Ned's name now he is Hand of the King and Robb a minor) and daughter of Hoster Tully, Lord Paramount of the Riverlands and relies on her father's retainers to carry out the arrest. She takes him to the Eyrie to gather what evidence Lysa has against him / the Lannisters in general (remember that little letter from Lysa to Cat at the start of the book saying the Lannisters murdered Jon Arryn?), in preparation for a trial under King Robert's adjudication. Fact that she is "wrong" is something she begins to wonder herself due to Tyrion's persuasive logic but by then Tyrion is Lysa's prisoner not her own and subject to her arbitrary (and lunatic) version of justice. Ned considers Cat's move a mistake because it is of course premature and not what they had planned: he has not yet uncovered the truth of Jon Arryn's fate (and never does) and he has not gained Robert's trust for any move against the Lannisters. But this is to confuse power politics at the very top with the exercise of justice and that is quite understandable because in the last reckoning Cat's decision to arrest Tyrion is based on her worry what mischief he might set in motion were he to return to KL and inform Jaime and Cersei of her secret visit, in turn making them wonder how soon Ned would strike at them. You can't really untangle the two but the idea that a high-ranking noblewoman could order someone's arrest in her Husband's name or in his place (as his regent which is unquestionably what she is at Winterfell) or as a surrogate for her Father is fairly clear in terms of how the system works. The fact that is is open to arbitrary abuse is of course why we no longer have such a system. All the Riverlands retainers at the inn answer her call to arrest Tyrion (with the exception of those dubious Freys) because that is how it works: no police force just a posse of retainers rounded up by a noble to arrest a suspect.
  8. the trees have eyes

    Fair Compensation for House Frey

    The knife is not meaningless, it's an extraordinary weapon (valyrian steel) and a hard piece of evidence. LF listened to her story then lied about who owned it, clearly intending to frame Tyrion for organizing the assassination attempt. And LF was not alone with Catelyn when they met, Varys was also there and did not question or challenge the narrative. Two Councillors of the King, one appearing to confirm, the other corroborate Tyrion's ownership of the attempted murder weapon. And it's not as if Cat hasn't already worked out that someone attempted to kill Bran previously by throwing him from the tower, at which time Tyrion was present at WF. Following the false trail she is set upon is really not that strange. I'm going to assume Robb is not prepared to either try and have his marriage annulled or Jeyne conveniently smothered in her sleep. Frey needs to settle for Edmure. >> Remember, two of Walder's grandsons were being fostered at WF before Theon and Ramsay took over. Both Robb and Edmure could offer to take more. No other Stark children are available for marriages due to presumed deaths, disappearances, captivity and there are no other Tully children.
  9. the trees have eyes

    Fair Compensation for House Frey

    You don't get put on leave for acting on reasonable grounds which is exactly what this is. Of course the issue is blurred by the pseudo-medieval context of certain nobility being above the law in practice unless a direct appeal to the king is made (again something both Ned and Catelyn planned though she got ahead of him by bumping into Tyrion unexpectedly).
  10. the trees have eyes

    Fair Compensation for House Frey

    Tywin has grounds to petition King Robert for redress of his grievance and release of his son. What Catelyn did as Lady Stark - and which Ned claimed responsibility for in virtue of the attempt on his son's life - is absolutely not grounds for Tywin to go to war with an uninvolved third party, Hoster Tully. The Riverlands had nothing to do with Tyrion's arrest and nothing to do with breaking the King's Peace - that was Tywin attacking at the Golden Tooth (and Jaime waylaying Ned in KL and killing his men). King Robert decides when to call the banners and wage war. Without that call any Lord waging war is a rebel lord as Ned is quick to point out when he calls anathema on Gregor Clegane as a false knight and orders his arrest. Tywin was simply canny enough to keep his distance and use subterfuge (absence of banners and house colours) in the initial attacks until after Robert was dead. Even if his House was wronged and he decided to indulge in a private war Tywin's grievance is with Lady and House Stark not the Riverlands. Slaughtering villagers in the Riverlands as a proxy for the Starks is simply murder. His plan was to try and provoke Ned to ride out as Hand to restore order, be taken captive and exchanged for Tyrion. None of this has or would have had Robert's sanction, even he wasn't that shitty a king or that far under Cersei's thumb.
  11. the trees have eyes

    ASoIaF character poll

    Ah, yes, the good old religious extremist Aeron who quite literally drowns people as a test of their faith in order to perform resuscitation on them as a display of his personal convictions and power. The guy who, on being told Euron had sailed into Pyke harbour, claimed the throne and drowned Lord Botley in a cask of salt water when he protested, didn't give two hoots about the murder because the law stipulated that no blood be spilled and so as a "godly man" was fine with the murder being committed by drowning rather than the sword. A real role model here. 1. 45 2. Male 3. Impossible to pick one really: any of Dany, Jon, Sansa, Cat, Tyrion or Bran 4. Littlefinger - for causing so much chaos and suffering because of his poor little bruised ego
  12. the trees have eyes

    Fair Compensation for House Frey

    Lord Frey did what a greedy man would do, demand Robb marry into his family (and Arya too) as the price of his aid. A shrewd man would have simply kept his drawbridge raised as his position was impregnable, a fact Robb and his commanders recognised. Nonetheless the compensation for Robb breaking his vow and marrying Jeyne Westerling seems met by Edmure agreeing to marry one of Walder's daughters in Robb's place. Edmure is after all Walder's liege Lord and the marriage makes Walder's grandson the heir to Riverrun. Given the circumstances the dowry might be waived or even provided by Robb as a show of contrition as the Starks, Tullys and Freys are united in one big happy family. Robb didn't actually drag the Riverlands into war you know: Tywin had loosed his armies on them long before Robb marched down the Causeway and relieved Riverrun. Walder was the only River Lord who refused Hoster Tully's call to arms - and remember Robet Barratheon is King and Tywin Lannister merely a rebel Lord when he decided to ignore his liege lord's summons - so Walder is an oathbreaker who is only prised out from behind his walls by his own self-interest (advantageous marriages).
  13. the trees have eyes

    Red Flags: Dany = Meereen Nobles

    I'm not sure if you're serious. Drogo is Khal, an undefeated warlord and the ultimate alpha male in an uber macho culture. Dany is his 14 year old bride. Viserys breaks Dothraki sacred law by drawing a blade in Vaes Dothrak and threatens Drogo's unborn child by pointing that sword at Dany's womb. At no point does Drogo defer to Dany and to do so in any way would be an enormous loss of face in his culture. At no point does Dany have any control over the situation (over either Viserys or Drogo) or even any say in what happens. Her power comes with the dragons and from walking into and out of a funeral pyre. It's not as if Dany just has to snap her fingers for Drogo to come to heel.
  14. the trees have eyes

    Red Flags: Dany = Meereen Nobles

    Drogo is Khal, she is merely Khaleesi, a position of no power at all. He wears the trousers. Once Viserys breaks Dothraki law threatens his unborn child he's toast and it's not in Dany's power to decide what to do with him.
  15. the trees have eyes

    Will Dany Resurrect?

    Something needs to happen to account for the large angry uncontrollable dragon in KL. Having him disappear to take his mother's corpse to some kind of nest like he made in the Dothraki Sea in ADWD closes that loophole and allows for a tender moment showing the bond between Dragon and rider/mother. I actually thought that part was well done. As for Dany returning from the grave: lord, who would want that? Her story is told, most of the characters are dead or their futures sketched out or hinted at, it's definitely the curtain drop. We had eight seasons, the actors will move on and the show's popularity has led to a number of pilots for prequels but Dany herself is done. PS Jon Snow read this thread title and said he tripped on a loose tile and forgot he had a dagger in his hand, can we talk about it?
×