Is Ned spitting on Adoption?

[Brian Rioghbhardan]

Yeah Dark Horse, that's is one my legitimate issues with Ned. I didn't like how he let Cat's insecurities concerning Jon get the best of him and just let Jon go join the Nightswatch with out making him fully aware what he would be giving up or trying to reassure him that there would be a place for him in Winterfell if he stayed. If Jon is the only child of his sister and she asked him to raise him, then I do think that he could have put more effort into trying to carve out some small insignificant piece of the north for Jon to be able to call his own. Grant him some small piece of land that he could call his own and maybe a meaningless title to go along with it. Before Ramsey got legitimized, his father had arranged for him to marry that old woman with land and a title (who he locked into a room till she ate her fingers and died). Don't give him Winterfell or anything like that but don't let him go on thinking he's got no place in this world. I think we see Jon realizing this when he's with Tyrion at the wall and getting angry that no one, especially Ned, ever warned him that the NW was going to be like this. I think he tell Tyrion that he's the only person who really tried to warn him (I think Benjen did too though).

 

As for a peaceful westeros vs a blood torn Westeros. If I recall correcetly Lord Aryn had already contacted Stannis before he died and informed him that he suspected that none of Roberts children were his own and that they were Jamies. So regardless of Ned's actions there would have likely been a war, but if he backed Renlys original plan to keep Joffrey as the face and rule togeather as his regent until he could be quietly removed then it would have just been stannis vs everyone else. I'm guessing that war wouldn't have been nearly as tragic for the small folk north of Kingslanding who suffered through hell because of land war between tullys/North and lannisters. Stannis would have likely pulled his whole Shadow monster trick and had renely killed so he could take control of the Stormlands troops so there still would have been some nasty battles, but nothing like what happened. Then again I suppose FAegon would have shown up and soon after Dany with her dragons and dorne would have joined one of them so shit was going to hit the fan no matter what.

[sweetsunray]

Yeah Dark Horse, that's is one my legitimate issues with Ned. I didn't like how he let Cat's insecurities concerning Jon get the best of him and just let Jon go join the Nightswatch with out making him fully aware what he would be giving up or trying to reassure him that there would be a place for him in Winterfell if he stayed. If Jon is the only child of his sister and she asked him to raise him, then I do think that he could have put more effort into trying to carve out some small insignificant piece of the north for Jon to be able to call his own. Grant him some small piece of land that he could call his own and maybe a meaningless title to go along with it. Before Ramsey got legitimized, his father had arranged for him to marry that old woman with land and a title (who he locked into a room till she ate her fingers and died). Don't give him Winterfell or anything like that but don't let him go on thinking he's got no place in this world. I think we see Jon realizing this when he's with Tyrion at the wall and getting angry that no one, especially Ned, ever warned him that the NW was going to be like this. I think he tell Tyrion that he's the only person who really tried to warn him (I think Benjen did too though).

 

As for a peaceful westeros vs a blood torn Westeros. If I recall correcetly Lord Aryn had already contacted Stannis before he died and informed him that he suspected that none of Roberts children were his own and that they were Jamies. So regardless of Ned's actions there would have likely been a war, but if he backed Renlys original plan to keep Joffrey as the face and rule togeather as his regent until he could be quietly removed then it would have just been stannis vs everyone else. I'm guessing that war wouldn't have been nearly as tragic for the small folk north of Kingslanding who suffered through hell because of land war between tullys/North and lannisters. Stannis would have likely pulled his whole Shadow monster trick and had renely killed so he could take control of the Stormlands troops so there still would have been some nasty battles, but nothing like what happened. Then again I suppose FAegon would have shown up and soon after Dany with her dragons and dorne would have joined one of them so shit was going to hit the fan no matter what.

 

Roose didn't arrange for that, since Roose was in the RL fighting Lannisters at the time. Lady Hornwood had just become a widow and lost her son because of the war South. Ramsay kidnapped her on her way back from the harvest feast at WF, took her to the Dreadfort, forced her into marriage at swordpoint, made her sign him into becoming her heir, locked her in a tower and left her to die without food. She only had 6 men with her for the journey. Bran, Cassel and Luwin discussed the matter with the many suitors, guardians of possible heirs, and herself, and settled on it to let Robb decide. Bran wanted to send an escort of 100 men with her to guard her keep and lands against the forces at the Dreadfort border, but Cassel thought the bastard would be too afraid of the reprisal if he tried anything. Cassel didn't count on a psychopath who just doesn't care and loves nothing more than taking outrageous risks. Too bad really, since she was letting Cassel know she was open to a second marriage with him and be a mother to little Beth. But Roose had nothing to do with it. It was all Ramsay.

[Brian Rioghbhardan]

Lol you're right he totally kidnapped her and forced her into marriage, oh Ramsey you rapscallion you, always getting yourself into something. 

[LordStoneheart]

If Ned had backed Renly, or just supported Cersei, he would be both sacrificing his ideals and siding with a family he did not care for ever since the sack of king's landing. He would be siding with the family that began a terroist campaign in the Riverlands because of the Tyrion incident. He would be siding with people who had thrown his child from a tower to protect a treasonous act. Ned chose to side with the lawful heir and a better person than Cersei and Joffrey. For all his faults, even the most Ned and honor-hating contrarian jackanapes can admit that Stannis would have been a much better ruler holding the throne than Joffrey and Cersei were. Just because there would be a little less war, which really isn't saying anything since it's a hypothetical situation and not verifiable, doesn't mean that it's a better option. If it means sacrificing everything that he believes in with no real benefits and an alliance with people that have been plotting against him for months, it's not a good choice.

[Brian Rioghbhardan]

Yeah but I think you're forgetting the fact that after a few days/weeks in a prison cell he DID end up agreeing to sacrifice his ideals and abandoning the lawful heir in order to side with a family that began a terrorist campaign in the riverlands and threw his child out of a window to protect a treasonous act. In the end he agreed to dishonor himself and everything that he believed in because he was promised that his daughters would be kept safe and he'd be sent to the wall. Sure the ensuing blood that reigned down later between Rob and the lannister forces had more to do with Joffrey's idiotic decision to have ned's head cut off. But if Ned had kept to his honor and ideals in that prison cell then he'd have lost his head anyways and there would have been war between the north/tully's and lannisters that would have torn westeros apart. The important difference is that when he was told that his actions would result in war and thousands upon thousands of innocent people dying in its wake he was too prideful to give in and an sacrifice his ideals for their lives. But when he was told that his daughters safety might be at risk, only then he was willing to dishonor himself. So it's not a matter of whether ned was willing to sacrifice his ideals or honor it's just a matter of the price. To him avoiding the needless deaths of thousand of innocent people/children wasn't worth the price of his honor but his daughters lives were. 

[LordStoneheart]

You can't compare those situations. What you are forgetting (besides many other details) is that he made the decision to confess his 'treason' after his power in KL was completely gone and his daughters safety directly at risk. Before that, he figured he had a chance to stage his coup and accomplish his goals. After he was taken prisoner, the tables were turned and his options few.

 

 

To him avoiding the needless deaths of thousand of innocent people/children wasn't worth the price of his honor but his daughters lives were. 

 

Needless deaths were already happening and would continue happening whatever decision he made. And in general, humans care more about their families than people they don't know. So if this is supposed to be a criticism, it's very weak, even with your misunderstanding of the situation.

[Brian Rioghbhardan]

Yeah but he kept to his principles for a long time after he was placed into the dungeon, I'll admit that it's been awhile since I read the first book so my reference to this actually comes from the first season of the show which I've rewatched recently. And to his credit, he didn't waver on his principles when he was first offered the option to live and take the black, so he was willing to sacrifice his own life for his beliefs. But even after the tables were completely turned, was taken prisoner and effectively lost any chance of creating the outcome he had wished for he still stood by his principles. And he had to know that the consequences of standing by those principles would be massive war.

 

But I suppose at this point in the story Stormguard/highguard had decided to take up arms against the lannisters and Stannis was preparing his own army. So war was unavoidable and best case scenario admitting treason and getting sent to the wall would have only mitigated the extent of the war by insuring that the riverlands, The north and Vale didn't get involved. I know the vale never did get involved but I'm sure from Ned's perspective in prison he would have expected the vale to back the tullys and his wife against the lannisters (specially since he assumed lady arynn blamed lannisters for her husbands death). And I suppose you could make a very good argument that if he did think  getting his head cut off would result in riverlands, vale and North joining in the war.  Then he'd likely suspect that these forces would do so in order to honor his own wishes of backing Stannis's claim to the throne and thus the lannisters would be fighting 5 of the 7 kingdoms and the war would be relatively short.

 

Still I think it's a fair argument to say that Ned's actions were motivated not by consideration of what was best for the actual people of westeros and instead by his own personal ideals which required that the rightful line of successcion be strictly adhered to. I know this is a total hypothetical but lets say Ramsey Bolton was actually the next in line after Robert and Ned knew what sort of person Ramsey was. Do you think Ned would still have done all the same shit in order to insure that Ramsey took the throne after Robert? I know we can't know the answer to this, but I kind of think Ned would have backed Ramsey because his principles and the law of the land meant more to him then the potential  of adhering to those laws for the people actually living in those lands. 

[Brian Rioghbhardan]

To be clear Ned isn't a bad person, he was a very just and good person but he was a tragic hero. Like all tragic hero's his fall came at the cost of a character flaw and as it often is that character flaw also happened to be one of his characters greatest strengths his honor. It acted as a double edged sword in the end. And while its perfectly fine to find his strict adherance to honor and the laws of the land admirable, I would caution people to think that this honor caused him to always have the best interest of the realm and it's peoples in mind. There are situations where honor/laws can be at odds with what is actually best for the people and I'd argue that those who think otherwise are making the same fatal mistake that Ned did. 

[Lady Blackmont]

MY BAD, you guys are totally right, raising a kid that's not blood related to you as if its your own is in no way similar to adoption at all. Totally different in every possible way. Can't believe i even thought one could connect the two situations as being similar. So does this mean if you all get married and have kids and then 17 years later you find out the kids that you raised and loved for 17 years aren't really your kids then you're just going to disown them and tell them no more fucking hugs, they can get hugs from their real father the guy who cleaned the pool 10 years ago and hasn't been heard of since? Because I actually know a girl who had this happened to her and none of it came out until the mother ended up divorcing the guy who she believed was her father (He beleived they were his kids too) and guess what he still wanted custody because too him they were his kids and will always be his kids. But Yeah I guess he's just being a retard, Ned should go pay him a visit and explain to him how these things work. Sure he'd tell him that it would be wrong to have his fake daughter murdered, but that he should totally send her into exile, You know because Ned's such a sweet and considerate guy.

It really bothers me when people mention that they have a significant real life reason to feel the way they do.

For example, I was on another thread recently where someone said they felt a certain way about incest because her friend had married a first cousin. It's perfectly fine that you have these experiances, and they contribute to your conclusions. Real life exposure is often a better way to formulate principles. However, expressing it on a forum is tactless.

My opinion is clearly not going to sway you a certain way. Your acquaintance will always take precedence over some random person on the internet, no matter how rational her argument. It really prevents me from taking a conversation seriously.

[Ser Arthur Hightower]

 

So, if I understand you correctly, Joffrey would be analogous to santorum? That seems to fit pretty well.

 

Joffrey never tried to ban porn, or declare war on Qarth.

[Brian Rioghbhardan]

I know that I fell back on a real life example to make my point, but I want to be clear that this real life example doesn't actually effect my personal views on the issue of finding out that the kids you've raised for 10-15 years are not your own. I just brought it up because most of you were acting like I'm insane for suggesting that anyone would willingly accept and continue to care for child that they raised and loved for over a decade after discovering that it wasn't really there kid. So I brought a real life example that I know about to illustrate that people with actual hearts, don't throw their kids, who just a few days ago they'd give their life for, to the curb when they find out they don't share the same DNA.

 

But Real life experience aside this has always been my view on the situation. Sure I'd totally understand if they threw their wife to the curb for being a cheating whore and making them into a cuckhold, but you don't go and tell your kids to fuck off because they aren't technically "your" kids. And I'm sorry if this offends you but I personally believe that anyone who would do that to a kid isn't a very good person. I'm sure it would really hurt to find out the woman you loved had betrayed you like that and that your kids aren't really your own, but that was your wife's lie not your kids, they've never been anything other than what they've always been and to throw away everything you've been through with them and  pretend like their suddenly strangers makes you a horrible person in my mind. I apply that to both Robert Bratheon as well as anyone in the real world. And I'm sorry but I don't think there actually exists a rational argument against that. Unless that argument is that you're a selfish human being who never actually loved those kids even when you thought they were yours. So now you're actually relieved to find out that they aren't yours because now someone else can deal with them. That's likely the only "rational" argument I'd accept. 

[Codename: Nymeria]

 

Joffrey never tried to ban porn, or declare war on Qarth.

 

I was referring to the common noun, not the proper. Feel free to google search the term at a NSFW computer.

 

 

I know that I fell back on a real life example to make my point, but I want to be clear that this real life example doesn't actually effect my personal views on the issue of finding out that the kids you've raised for 10-15 years are not your own. I just brought it up because most of you were acting like I'm insane for suggesting that anyone would willingly accept and continue to care for child that they raised and loved for over a decade after discovering that it wasn't really there kid. So I brought a real life example that I know about to illustrate that people with actual hearts, don't throw their kids, who just a few days ago they'd give their life for, to the curb when they find out they don't share the same DNA.

 

But Real life experience aside this has always been my view on the situation. Sure I'd totally understand if they threw their wife to the curb for being a cheating whore and making them into a cuckhold, but you don't go and tell your kids to fuck off because they aren't technically "your" kids. And I'm sorry if this offends you but I personally believe that anyone who would do that to a kid isn't a very good person. I'm sure it would really hurt to find out the woman you loved had betrayed you like that and that your kids aren't really your own, but that was your wife's lie not your kids, they've never been anything other than what they've always been and to throw away everything you've been through with them and  pretend like their suddenly strangers makes you a horrible person in my mind. I apply that to both Robert Bratheon as well as anyone in the real world. And I'm sorry but I don't think there actually exists a rational argument against that. Unless that argument is that you're a selfish human being who never actually loved those kids even when you thought they were yours. So now you're actually relieved to find out that they aren't yours because now someone else can deal with them. That's likely the only "rational" argument I'd accept. 

 

See, once you've admitted to being a troll, you gotta stop trolling. Literally nobody on this forum has come anywhere close to suggesting what you claim we're "acting like you're insane" about. You're arguing against a straw man. Kinda like when Clint Eastwood argued with that chair at the RNC, only someone even less in touch with reality.

 

Then again, I suppose you must pay the troll tole to see inside the boy's hole.

[DMC]

Then again, I suppose you must pay the troll tole to see inside the boy's hole.

 

I think everybody needs to Take a Five.

[Brian Rioghbhardan]

lol Yeah that's fair, I can't exactly take on the role of a Troll and make a non serious post and then follow it up by saying a bunch of self rightious indignation. So I'll take back my comment about everyone acting like I was crazy, they were in the right to do so. Still correct me if I'm wrong, but it did sound like lady Blackmount was saying that my personal experience with someone who was raised by a man who turned out not to be her father and yet continued to treat her as his is daughter has caused me to be blinded to the fact that there is a rational argument for disowning a child you raised after finding out it isn't yours. And if I'm correct in interpreting her comments as such then I would like to take my troll hat off for the moment and earnestly say that this is not the case. And that when it comes to this issue I stand by the views I expressed in my last comment. I can accept the fact that not everyone in the world would be wiling to make the same choice when finding out their kids are not actually their kids, but there is an inherent selfishness in those kinds of people. And the only rational argument I can see for them making that choice is that they never really wanted or cared for those kids to begin with (even when they thought they were their kids). Otherwise I'd argue that they're being very irrational in their actions. 

[sweetsunray]

Stop dragging modern take on rearing and accepting children into this. I'm not fond of the "But Westeros is mideval feudal society" argument. If you want to condemn Westeros' society being picky about being cuckolded, bastards and trueborn chidren, fine... but it's complete BS to argue about it to one person of that whole society, who 

1 - basically adopted his nephew as a bastard son to protect his life, and yet not infringe on his children's right of inheritance

2 - tried to give a mother a chance to bring her children to safety from any revenge the cuckolded king might have perform on her and children

3 - and again tried to come with a solution to the throne issue, without threatening the lives of those same children on the king's death bed

 

And be sure Robert would have killed Cersei's children had he known. He wanted to acknowledge and even raise some of his own bastards (pre-marriage) to the keep, but his cuckolding wife threatened his bastards would not live long. Meanwhile she had him raise her 3 children by her twin brother as heirs and aborted his actual children with her. And she did in fact send GC to murder babies and older children of his.

 

Within the society's strict importance put on trueborn blood and there not being something like the Roman political possibility to adopt children, Ned tried his best to find some middle ground. He lost his life trying to do so, and Cersei's 3 children will die because of it just as well.

[devilish]

So I know if R+L= J then it might be kind of hard to argue that Ned shits on the idea of adoption. But when re-reading GoT I couldn't help but feel that his attitude towards Joffrey sitting on the throne was really insulting to families of adopted kids. We know from later books that Jamie kept his distance from his kids and never took on a father like role. In Roberts eyes all these kids were his own and in their eyes Robert was their father. So even if Robert wasn't the best father, he raised these kids just as he would have if they had actually been his. So depending on where you stand on nature vs nurture, Joffrey would have sucked just as much if he had been Roberts son. It's even stated that Joffrey hired that guy to kill Bran because he heard his father saying that someone should just put the kid out of his misery and he wanted to impress his father. But here comes Ned charging in and shouting, nope none of this matter you can't sit on the throne he's not your real dad. Like if Ned visited the home of some nice family that adopted a few kids from Africa, when they called their adoptive parents daddy/mommy would he shout at them to stop it and tell them that they aren't really their mommy and daddy? 

 

a - Adoption means given the child the same rights and the surname of a true born. Ned didn't and couldn't adopt Jon Snow. His wife wouldn't have permitted it and if Ned begged Robert for it without Cat's approval than rest assured that Robert wouldn't have accepted his proposal. Hoster had served in the rebellion as much as the Ned did and the Tully had a poweful ally in Jon Arryn. Robert couldn't afford a rift between his closest allies, so he would have probably told Eddard to man up and accept the current status quo.

 

b- Ned believed in the line of succession. Hence why he opted for Stannis despite he knew deep down that Renly was a better king. The line of succession may not be a fair way of doing things but at least it gives structure. Else you would have chaos were Renly could rebel against Stannis, Bran against Robb etc. Joffrey wasn't the rightful king. He was born out of incest and carried the surname Baratheon  through lies. 

[devilish]

Do you think maybe in a weird way Roose Bolton was kinder to his bastard son then Ned was to jon? I know that he only brought him into his house and asked the king to legitimize Ramsey because he needed an heir. But Robert was Ned's best friend, Robert didn't take his powers all that seriously and he totally owed ned for helping put him on the throne. If Ned wanted he could have asked Robert to Legitimize Jon Snow so that he didn't have to grow up with the shame of being a bastard and lesser than the other Stark children. Sure I know if Jon's father is Rhaegar that would technically make him Jon Targ not Jon Stark. But obviously you wouldn't bring that up and he'd just grow up as Jon stark. Just like if Rhaegar is his father then his bastard name should be Jon Waters not Jon Snow, but Ned doesn't have a problem with calling him Jon Snow. 

 

Robert may not have taken his reign seriously but he was no fool. By legitimizing Jon Snow without the Tully's concert would have meant straining the Baratheons relations with the Tullys who also served during Robert's rebellion. Such strain may cause a contagion with Jon Arryn ending up being involved (he's marry to a Tully too). Also note that while men pull the ropes in GOT the women are the ones who raise the children. Cat and Lysa had plenty of influence on their respective sons and the future wardens of the North and the Vale. Would that result into a future open rebellion? I much doubt it. However it may well result in the Vale, North and Riverlands not calling the bannesr the next time an ageing Robert or his offspring needed it the most

 

Do you think maybe in a weird way Roose Bolton was kinder to his bastard son then Ned was to jon? I know that he only brought him into his house and asked the king to legitimize Ramsey because he needed an heir. But Robert was Ned's best friend, Robert didn't take his powers all that seriously and he totally owed ned for helping put him on the throne. If Ned wanted he could have asked Robert to Legitimize Jon Snow so that he didn't have to grow up with the shame of being a bastard and lesser than the other Stark children. Sure I know if Jon's father is Rhaegar that would technically make him Jon Targ not Jon Stark. But obviously you wouldn't bring that up and he'd just grow up as Jon stark. Just like if Rhaegar is his father then his bastard name should be Jon Waters not Jon Snow, but Ned doesn't have a problem with calling him Jon Snow. 

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

 

But Real life experience aside this has always been my view on the situation. Sure I'd totally understand if they threw their wife to the curb for being a cheating whore and making them into a cuckhold, but you don't go and tell your kids to fuck off because they aren't technically "your" kids. And I'm sorry if this offends you but I personally believe that anyone who would do that to a kid isn't a very good person. I'm sure it would really hurt to find out the woman you loved had betrayed you like that and that your kids aren't really your own, but that was your wife's lie not your kids, they've never been anything other than what they've always been and to throw away everything you've been through with them and  pretend like their suddenly strangers makes you a horrible person in my mind. I apply that to both Robert Bratheon as well as anyone in the real world. And I'm sorry but I don't think there actually exists a rational argument against that. Unless that argument is that you're a selfish human being who never actually loved those kids even when you thought they were yours. So now you're actually relieved to find out that they aren't yours because now someone else can deal with them. That's likely the only "rational" argument I'd accept. 

raised for 10-15 years are not your own. I just brought it up because most of you were acting like I'm insane for suggesting that anyone would willingly accept and continue to care for child that they raised and loved for over a decade after discovering that it wasn't really there kid. So I brought a real life example that I know about to illustrate that people with actual hearts, don't throw their kids, who just a few days ago they'd give their life for, to the curb when they find out they don't share the same DNA.

 

What the hell are you talking about now? "Suddenly" strangers? "The woman you loved"? How the fuck does that apply to the subject of our discussion? We're not talking about some abstract, ideally spherical family in a vacuum. We're talking about, specifically, Robert, Cersei, Joffrey, Myrcella and Tommen. That family is already dysfunctional, alienated and generally fucked up, was so long before Ned came into the picture. The children are already strangers to Robert. Cersei was never "the woman she loved". There isn't, has never been, love or affection, or frankly, anything besides realpolitik. The picture you're painting, of some perfectly fine, loving family suddenly destroyed by Ned's news, does not apply. It wasn't, really, a family, it was a business arrangement, and Cersei plain and simple breached the contract. If you absolutely, positively must think of their situation from 21st century point of view, then "contract" and "breach of contract" should be your operative words, not "love" and "affection".

 

That explained, I'll now rephrase your question so it can actually apply to Robert and Cersei: "If someone is terminated for cause, is it OK to treat them as if they no longer work here?". And the answer is not only "fuck yes", but "seriously, dude, what's else is there?".

[Lady Blackmont]

lol Yeah that's fair, I can't exactly take on the role of a Troll and make a non serious post and then follow it up by saying a bunch of self rightious indignation. So I'll take back my comment about everyone acting like I was crazy, they were in the right to do so. Still correct me if I'm wrong, but it did sound like lady Blackmount was saying that my personal experience with someone who was raised by a man who turned out not to be her father and yet continued to treat her as his is daughter has caused me to be blinded to the fact that there is a rational argument for disowning a child you raised after finding out it isn't yours. And if I'm correct in interpreting her comments as such then I would like to take my troll hat off for the moment and earnestly say that this is not the case. And that when it comes to this issue I stand by the views I expressed in my last comment. I can accept the fact that not everyone in the world would be wiling to make the same choice when finding out their kids are not actually their kids, but there is an inherent selfishness in those kinds of people. And the only rational argument I can see for them making that choice is that they never really wanted or cared for those kids to begin with (even when they thought they were their kids). Otherwise I'd argue that they're being very irrational in their actions.

Not at all. It wasn't a subtle snipe, it was merely a warning. People will take your argument less seriously if you admit that a real world person is weighing heavily on your feelings. Again, that's fine. I had a homophobic friend in highschool, and she didn't open her eyes until her brother came out about his sexuality. Real life experiances are helpful, but they have potential to obscure judgment. People don't take kindly to arguing with a wall.

[Hoppy Hour]

:bang:

 

There is interpreting a text and then there is deliberately misunderstanding it...

 

Joffrey, Myrcella and Tommen are not adopted, they are the product of Cersei's adultery with her brother (something that counts as high treason under Westerosi law) Robert had no clue that they weren't his.

 

Sorry you will have to find something else about Ned to criticize.

 

 

 

:agree: