Jump to content

Small Questions v 10078


Stubby

Recommended Posts

Back to Ned's mother for a moment. :)



No doubt there are marriages across the Wall in the histories of many, if not all, the houses in the North. After all, when Southron folk think of Northerners, the adjective often used to describe them is wild, reminding us constantly of the connection.



But had Ned's mother been a wilding out-and-out, every southerner would have had that thought cross their mind whenever they thought of Ned. Even, I suspect, if his mother had been half a wilding.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still, seems quite unusual that she'd whisper "all men must die" to herself after she kills the guard (she also whispers it after Anguy kills the jailed northmen at Stoney Sept). She readily associates the phrase with death, but Jaqen gives no such hint of it. Weird to say the least.

I differ: I think it is all conclusive to associate the killer's mantra with the act of killing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back to Ned's mother for a moment. :)

No doubt there are marriages across the Wall in the histories of many, if not all, the houses in the North. After all, when Southron folk think of Northerners, the adjective often used to describe them is wild, reminding us constantly of the connection.

But had Ned's mother been a wilding out-and-out, every southerner would have had that thought cross their mind whenever they thought of Ned. Even, I suspect, if his mother had been half a wilding.

I'd be very surprised if there had been any marriages between the nobility of the North and the wildings.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are only families that have held the titles King and Prince considered royal, and feudal lords are not? I'm asking if this is true in real life too.

in real life? It is complicated. Dukes, earls, jarls, kings are all royal and the titles are from before 1000 AD. Coming from the past, all four titles in their respective areas were once at the same level => kings, until kings emerged to be higher than the other titles. Nonetheless, the others are royal still.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The north remembers."

Is this significant with respect to the weirwoods?

Would the weirwoods remember the long long?

I think it is significant, maybe not directly. The phrase definitely at least in part refers to the North holding onto the Old Gods and the things that go along with that (warging, etc.)

This is probably a stupid question. We hear a lot about "high treason" over the course of the books. what would qualify as low treason?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is significant, maybe not directly. The phrase definitely at least in part refers to the North holding onto the Old Gods and the things that go along with that (warging, etc.)

This is probably a stupid question. We hear a lot about "high treason" over the course of the books. what would qualify as low treason?

Don't take my word for it as I'm not sure, but I believe that high treason has to do with the direct death and/or line of succession - e.g. I think Cersei killing Robert and posing her bastards as his are both high treason.

Low or normal treason would be for example the Hound leaving the battlefield. It's still breaking your direct oaths to the king, but not directly conspiring/killing him.

That's how I imagine it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hah! Let me try to explain that, said the lawyer. :p



Because the Normans invaded England way back when, a lot of legal terms have a French root. Treason was the crime of betraying a superior, high treason betraying the king (or state) and petit treason betraying your master. Often it would involve murder, and petit treason disappeared into the murder laws, while high treason against the crown and the state still remains.



In Canada (and maybe in your country as well) we have two crimes of treason, plain-old treason and high treason, the difference being high treason occurs during war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't take my word for it as I'm not sure, but I believe that high treason has to do with the direct death and/or line of succession - e.g. I think Cersei killing Robert and posing her bastards as his are both high treason.

Low or normal treason would be for example the Hound leaving the battlefield. It's still breaking your direct oaths to the king, but not directly conspiring/killing him.

That's how I imagine it.

According to Fragile Bird Sandor did commit high treason when he went oot and and aboot, eh?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just want to point out that high treason involves the commission of a crime that is against the state, like trying to overthrow the government or blow up the parliament buildings. Because in a monarchy the crown was the embodiment of the state, crimes against the person of the king or queen or some members of their family were crimes of treason. Out of curiosity I looked at UK laws, and attacks against the king and queen were high treason, as were attacks against the eldest daughter, the eldest son, and the wife of the eldest son. Counterfeiting money was treason, (until the 1800s), because that would undermine the state.

So throwing a rotten tomato at the Queen today would not be high treason, because it could not be reasonably considered an attempt on her life, unlike, say, throwing a hand grenade at her. Throwing a cow pie at Joffrey though may have been. :)

The Hound's desertion would not be treason, it would be a separate crime, still serious enough to be punishable by death, especially in wartime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just want to point out that high treason involves the commission of a crime that is against the state, like trying to overthrow the government or blow up the parliament buildings. Because in a monarchy the crown was the embodiment of the state, crimes against the person of the king or queen or some members of their family were crimes of treason. Out of curiosity I looked at UK laws, and attacks against the king and queen were high treason, as were attacks against the eldest daughter, the eldest son, and the wife of the eldest son. Counterfeiting money was treason, (until the 1800s), because that would undermine the state.

So throwing a rotten tomato at the Queen today would not be high treason, because it could not be reasonably considered an attempt on her life, unlike, say, throwing a hand grenade at her. Throwing a cow pie at Joffrey though may have been. :)

The Hound's desertion would not be treason, it would be a separate crime, still serious enough to be punishable by death, especially in wartime.

You gave good examples, but one thing still bigs me. Isn't desertion treason? I always thought it was. Or is it only desertion during wartime, or with circumstances that would make it treason (for example, taking the weapons and provisions of others, thus undermining the state)? Or is it just a separate crime?

Maybe it's something that is debatable and would be tried in court, no?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was the Sack of Winterfell (and the accompanying it butchery) done on Roose's orders or was it Ramsay taking initiative?

That's one for the exceptionally large questions thread...

Seriously, there are several threads on the topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just wonder if anyone has discussed this passage between the Small Council & Sansa after Neds arrested for treason. l looked it up to re read after watching GOT series 1 again.

Sansa has just heard of the accusatuons against Ned she is begging to still be allowed to marry Joff " a child born of a traitors seed will find that betrayal comes naturally to her" said Grand Maester Pycelle. " she is a sweet thing now, but in ten years, who knows what treasons she may HATCH" - she protests saying she would never, & she loves Joff.

The show repeats the same words by Pycelle, however Sansa defends herself & her charachter embelishes & (IMHO) reinforces his words by saying "I would never betray Joff I love him, I wont Be HATCHING anything"

Taking into account-

This 1st book was was written in 1966.

We know that GRRM has stated that he originally intended a 5 year gap.

He has probably added & evolved many of his original characters Arcs.

Does anyone think there might be an Ice Dragon in Sansa's future? I understand the whole idea of blood of the dragon thing. ... Just wondreing if the words are some foreshadowing of some kind..

Please ignore next line its a repeat - not so smart phone wont delete

gap of 5 years so there is now undoubtably more story

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You gave good examples, but one thing still bigs me. Isn't desertion treason? I always thought it was. Or is it only desertion during wartime, or with circumstances that would make it treason (for example, taking the weapons and provisions of others, thus undermining the state)? Or is it just a separate crime?

Maybe it's something that is debatable and would be tried in court, no?

It would have to be a really unusual set of circumstances for desertion to be treason. Perhaps if members of the royal family were under attack and the soldier was a personal bodyguard. While the Hound was Joffrey's personal guard, when he deserted he was a soldier in the field. But, as I said, deserters in wartime could be executed in many countries.

Typically deserters were simply Absent Without Leave, or AWOL, and would in the distant past be flogged, or branded (the saying, he was branded a traitor, or, he was branded a deserter, comes from being literally branded) or jailed, and then dismissed from the army. The British armed forces had a strong tradition of executing deserters in time of war, and Canada followed the tradition, which became very controversial after WW I. Public sentiment turned against the practice, and no Canadians were executed for desertion during WW II, although after the end of the war a deserter who was also an accomplice to murder was executed. I believe the USA continued to execute some deserters during WW II, the Korean War, and, iirc, as late as 1962. On the other hand, Russians ordered the military to execute deserters in the field without trial, and to report their names so their families could be punished as well.

Deserters would face court martial today before a military tribunal, which would be made up of officers. They are not tried in the civil courts. One of the fights over the prisoners at Guantanamo was over the issue of the prisoners being tried before military tribunals instead of civilian courts.

The trial of Bradley Manning was extremely unusual because he/she (she identified as female but the army refused to recognize that) was charged with both aiding and abetting the enemy (pretty well treason in military terms) and desertion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...