Are Jon's Vows Fulfilled?

[norwaywolf123]

5 hours ago, Coren82 said:

Ehi, I don't care a fuck about the title of next episode of that shitty show.

I am reading the novels for 15 years, and I am sick of people like you, spoilering all over the Internet.

Moreover, it is against the forum rules, so next time I will signal you to moderators.

Best regards.

I think many of the most northern of the houses will be offended by Jon letting the wildlings thru. 

[Greg B]

On 5/11/2016 at 10:12 AM, Make Shadowbabies Not War said:

Wasn't Jon planning on marching an army to Winterfell? That is, I'm pretty sure, a direct violation of the whole 'shield that guards the realms of men' aspect of the vow. I never got the argument about whether or not Jon will break his vows, when he already done so. In fact, he was, by the end of ADWD, actively working against the vows and the Watch's principles..

Not just "an army," a wildling army! And before that, he deceived the Watch by pretending to execute Mance Rayder, and then sent the wildling king on a secret mission to steal a lord's lawful wife. He gave military advice to Stannis that would prolong the civil war, gave a northern fort to the wildlings, and arranged a marriage between a northern lady and a wildling warlord. He's already, uh, hilt deep in the politics of the Seven Kingdoms.

And people want to argue about whether he "kept his vows" long enough to die! I'm not one of those who believes the oath and neutrality ("The Watch takes no part") are separate and distinct. The oath is meant to symbolically sever the ties, relationships and entanglements that would threaten neutrality and thereby threaten the continued existence of the Watch. Arguing about whether he kept the words while he trod all over the ancient custom of neutrality upon which the Night's Watch depended strikes me as truly hilarious.

Jon is already an oathbreaker. More than that, though, he's already acted unlawfully and in open rebellion against the realm while serving as lord commander of the Night's Watch. Before he died, he had made himself a rebel warlord. I'm glad of it, but that's what he did.

[Drogo_1]

11 hours ago, Coren82 said:

Ehi, I don't care a fuck about the title of next episode of that shitty show.

I am reading the novels for 15 years, and I am sick of people like you, spoilering all over the Internet.

Moreover, it is against the forum rules, so next time I will signal you to moderators.

Best regards.

I didn't spoil anything. This topic was speculative. Just because I happened to guess right doesn't mean I knew what would happen before the show aired. If you don't want to be spoiled on anything Thrones related turn off your computer, turn off your tv, and definitely don't make small talk with anyone. Also for someone who is afraid of spoilers, you really should not have come to this forum which absolutely speculates on what is to come and some of which is going to turn out to be true. Find something reasonable to be an asshole about.

[norwaywolf123]

Jon Snow deserved to die and to stay dead.

[Coren82]

3 hours ago, Drogo_1 said:

I didn't spoil anything. This topic was speculative. Just because I happened to guess right doesn't mean I knew what would happen before the show aired. If you don't want to be spoiled on anything Thrones related turn off your computer, turn off your tv, and definitely don't make small talk with anyone. Also for someone who is afraid of spoilers, you really should not have come to this forum which absolutely speculates on what is to come and some of which is going to turn out to be true. Find something reasonable to be an asshole about.

1) Topic is speculative basing on the content of the NOVELS. Before the airing of the HBO series speculation has never been an issue here.

2) You MAY have guessed it right, because the content of the show is not CANONIC, but it is anyway an extremely annoying potential source of spoilers.

3) It is not the first time that people tell me to shut down the Internet if I don't want to be spoiled about the books I have been reading since the 2002. I am not even losing time answering that.

4) From moderators:

" This means that no show spoilers of any kind should be posted in the book forums. No hints, no speculation, nothing. Any breach of that rule will result in a suspension: no excuses and no exceptions. "

It is very clear to me that you are violating the rules, you are citing the title of an episode of the show as an argument in a discussion about the novels.

If you want to talk about the Westeros Telenovelas, there is plenty of threads in the other rooms, have fun there.

If the forum rules will change, I will find another place to lurk and discuss, for now, according to the rules, you are wrong and I am right, simple as that.

I am sorry for being unpolite in the previous post, but that HBO show and its fans are ruining the pleasure of people wanting to hear the story from the author of the story. What a silly thing, isn't it?

 

"Find something reasonable to be an asshole about."

This is the only line you are right about, I also laugh hard  

Unfortunately I am a bit fanatic about this, but I know it.

[Pastaeyes]

Just a thought, if The Hound gets found not guilty by trial by combat when he kills Beric even though he gets brought back doesn't that mean it's the point of death that is the rule. If he dies his vows are fullfilled.

[The Twinslayer]

On 5/10/2016 at 11:06 PM, lancerman said:

Not really...

The Night's Watch actual verbal oath says the Watch Ends when you die. An inheritance is passed down to any living heirs. Having died once has no bearing on ones ability to claim an inheritance. It's not a mutually exclusive scenario.

If Ned or Robert came back to life for some reason within the same timespan as Jon, there is almost no doubt that Robb and Joffrey would be forced to step down. Losing a title has more to do with not being around to claim it. Jon swore an oath that explicitly mentions death as the endpoint.

I disagree.  Look at Robert's will:  "I do hereby command Eddard of House Stark, Lord of Winterfell and Hand of the King, to serve as Lord Regent and Protector of the Realm upon my . . . upon my death . . . to rule in my stead, until my son Joffrey does come of age..."

It is very clear -- Robert knows that when he dies, his claim to the throne ends.  Ned is to rule "until my son Joffrey does come of age."

[lancerman]

9 hours ago, The Twinslayer said:

I disagree.  Look at Robert's will:  "I do hereby command Eddard of House Stark, Lord of Winterfell and Hand of the King, to serve as Lord Regent and Protector of the Realm upon my . . . upon my death . . . to rule in my stead, until my son Joffrey does come of age..."

It is very clear -- Robert knows that when he dies, his claim to the throne ends.  Ned is to rule "until my son Joffrey does come of age."

Pretty sure Robert wasn't taking into account a Ressurection in that will. 

[John Doe]

1 minute ago, lancerman said:

Pretty sure Robert wasn't taking into account a Ressurection in that will. 

Pretty sure the NW wasn't taking into account a ressurection in that oath.

[lancerman]

2 hours ago, John Doe said:

Pretty sure the NW wasn't taking into account a ressurection in that oath.

Doesn't matter. 

The NW has an oath has a specific phrase mentioning that it ends at death. 

There is no such clause in a will saying that if you died and were redirected you can no longer claim your inheritance. 

If Robert returned from the dead, almost everyone would allow him to reclaim the crown with very little dissent. If Robb's will is discovered and Jon is the heir, if he is alive at the time to claim it, there is no law stopping him. Unless Robb specifically has written that Jon cannot claim it if he dies under any circumstances. 

 

 

[autarkh]

Yes, Jon’s death discharges his obligations to the Night's Watch. There's a colorable argument that it doesn't—but I think it relies on a strained interpretation of the words of his vow.

First, a few comments regarding the analysis to follow.

To me, the words of the Black are the most important factor in determining the duration and scope of the obligations Jon assumed.

The Black is a solemn and time-honored oath that has been handed down for generations.  It receives considerable focus in the books.  Indeed, when it's sworn, it's prefaced with the statement, "[h]ear my words, and bear witness to my vow." (AGOT, Jon VI.) (Emphasis added.)  So I presume—reasonably, I think—that the actual language of the Black matters. 

To interpret the Black, above all, I look at the objective and ordinary meaning of the words, and consider them in the context of the full vow rather than in isolation.  I also look at what people said about the vow in the books.  And if there’s a latent ambiguity, I consider what the person saying the words understood them to mean at the time the vow was given, especially if their internal monologue is captured in the books.

Here are the operative provisions of the Black:

1. Night gathers, and now my watch begins. It shall not end until my death. 

(This is the key language defining the term of the commitment, including its specific beginning and end points. Note that it says “until my death” not “until I am dead,” “while I live,” “it shall never end,” or something like “and now my eternal watch begins.”)

2. I shall live and die at my post.

(This specifies that the commitment is continuous. Your watch is not a work shift. There are no vacations. Rather, you live where you’re stationed and the Watch becomes your permanent new home.  You’re a full-time nightwatchman until you die.)

3. I pledge my life and honor to the Night's Watch, for this night and all the nights to come.

(This—together with the renunciation of all other lands, titles, and other rights that define a person’s identity in Westeros—defines the scope of the commitment. The nightwatchman has no higher loyalties than to the Watch, and promises to lay down his life in the performance of his duties if necessary.  The subordinate clause of provision no. 3 (after the comma) reinforces that this obligation continues for the full term of the person’s watch.  Notably, this clause expressly incorporates provision no. 1 into its meaning by referring to “this night” and “all the nights to come.” The referent of the “this” is the specific night on which the person swearing the vow’s “watch begins.” Likewise, note that the clause says “all the nights to come” not “all nights to come.”  Use of the definite article “the” strongly implies an earlier referent.   Disegarding the context of this subordinate clause is one of the key interpretative mistakes I’ve seen made by people who think Jon’s watch lasts forever.)

Here’s an annotated version of the above provisions that substitutes in the referents of the words “it,” “this,” and “the":

1. Night gathers, and now my watch begins. [My watch] shall not end until my death.
2. I shall live and die at my post.
3. I pledge my life and honor to the Night's Watch, for this night [on which my night begins] and all the nights to come [until my death].

Further observations and analysis:

• Recall that, as LC Mormont explained, the Black is said “[a]t evenfall, as the sun sets and [while] fac[ing] the gathering night” and that “[f]rom that moment, [the person taking the oath] will be a Sworn Brother of the Night's Watch.” (AGOT, Jon VI.) Thus, “Night gathers, and now my watch begins” indicates a specific and definite commencement of the obligations under the vow. (AGOT, Jon VI.)
• The phrase “and now his watch is ended,” which is typically said ceremoniously at the funeral of a nightwatchman, parallels the phrase “and now my watch begins.”  This further suggests a definite end date upon death.
• The Black is a promise to be on watch until one’s death. By the objective meaning of the word "death"—i.e., what a typical person in Westeros taking the Black would understand death to mean—Jon has factually fulfilled the condition of his oath. The Black asks the swearer of the oath to lay down his life for the Watch. Jon did that.  Keep in mind that one life is all the vast majority people ever get. Death is their end, so this issue never arises. Here though, it appears that death won’t be end of Jon. But it's not like Jon just took a little nap and then woke up refreshed. Moreover, he didn’t engineer his death or permit it to happen in order to avoid his obligations.  He was murdered by his own sworn brothers and subordinates. 
• Jon will (presumably) be brought back from death by extraordinary magical means. Resurrection was almost certainly not in Jon’s or anyone else's contemplation at the time the vow was originally sworn. So to the extent Jon played no intentional part in causing the fulfillment of the condition that terminated his oath, and his resurrection was itself not a deliberate pretext to avoid that oath, his oath shouldn't be given a meaning to cover that situation unless it is already unambiguously encompassed by the original words of the vow—which it isn't here.

All of these circumstances matter, because when taken together, they tend to show that we’re not dealing with a “technicality” or “loophole,” but instead a straightforward application of the letter and spirit of the vow to an extraordinary situation.  If anything, stretching the Black to cover a person's unexpected life after death would be the real technicality or catch-22. Jon already paid the ultimate price for the Watch. Although he is free to re-affirm his vows in this new life, his original vow demands no more of him.  

[autarkh]

9 hours ago, John Doe said:

6 hours ago, lancerman said:

Doesn't matter. 

The NW has an oath has a specific phrase mentioning that it ends at death. 

There is no such clause in a will saying that if you died and were redirected you can no longer claim your inheritance. 

If Robert returned from the dead, almost everyone would allow him to reclaim the crown with very little dissent. If Robb's will is discovered and Jon is the heir, if he is alive at the time to claim it, there is no law stopping him. Unless Robb specifically has written that Jon cannot claim it if he dies under any circumstances. 

 

 

Pretty sure the NW wasn't taking into account a ressurection in that oath.

There's also another way to look at and solve the problem of Jon’s death for purposes of the Black vs. for purposes of any inheritance or titles he could possibly claim.

Receiving an inheritance—especially of land, but possibly also titles that pass by virtue of holding that land or by succeeding a person in to an official non-landed hereditary office—likely requires intermediary steps to achieve formal recognition (i.e., verifying someone's identity as well as the authenticity and contents of the deceased's will, or assuming they died without a will, determining the closest living relative that will receive the inheritance or sorting out competing claims). If there isn't a dedicated court system to handle this sort of thing, the process would likely be conducted by the lord in whose domain this process occurred. For a great keep and lordship, such as Winterfell—whose lord is either King in the North or Warden of the North under the Iron Throne—this probably requires direct royal intervention, or if there is no king, recognition by the vassal lords. 

Since Robb's will has never actually been "processed" in this way, it could still theoretically occur after Jon’s likely resurrection. Thus, hypothetically, if Jon were to assert a claim to the land and lordship of Winterfell as Jon Stark (assuming his claim were not challenged by Bran, Rickon, Sansa, or Arya), he could presumably be legitimized under Robb's will, inherit Winterfell, and then be crowned as King in the North—so long as the other Northern houses are willing to recognize and swear fealty to him. There’s a decent argument that Jon irrevocably waived rights to any land, titles, crowns, etc. when he took the Black, and that any rights that accrued during the time he was a Brother of the Watch were encompassed by that waiver even if his watch is now ended. But again, Robb’s will hasn’t been formally processed, and you could just as easily make the opposite argument. Ultimately, it comes down again to whether the Northern houses are willing to recognize him as their lord.

Of course, as far as the IT is concerned, Roose Bolton is lord of Winterfell and Warden of the North, and Jon is still a bastard because the acts of Robb as King in the North—a kingship that the IT never considered valid—would be null and void. It’s inconceivable that IT would recognize Jon under current circumstances by way of anything Robb did.

On the other hand, if Jon wanted to claim the IT itself, as Jon Targaryen, to get around this problem, he would have to get the great houses to recognize his claim as superior to Tommen’s and back him instead. He could start by proclaiming Tommen a bastard—a badly kept secret—and, assuming Stannis and Shireen aren’t still around, declaring the absence of a successor to the Baratheon dynasty. (Query how likely Jon is to do this given his own history as a former bastard—although the irony would be delicious.) He would then declare himself heir to the Targaryen dynasty as the legitimate son of Rhaegar and Lyanna (assuming they were married) and offer whatever proof he had of this fact. He could also make a backup claim to being heir to the IT by virtue of his status as the closest-living male relative to Robert Baratheon (2^nd cousin, once removed). Assuming Young Grif/(f)Aegon is who he purports to be, he would have the same degree of relation to Rhaegar (son) or Robert (2^nd cousin, once removed).  But Aegon is older than Jon, so Jon would probably have to dispute his identity as the strongest line of attack. And then there’s Daenerys. Although she is more closely related to Robert (2^nd cousin), she’s a woman and would presumably lose under strict Targaryen male preference. Regardless, under either a direct claim by virtue of her indisputable Targaryen heritage (daughter of Aerys II) or an indirect claim based on her relation to Robert, she likely wins—despite her sex. Because dragons.

What we were talking about again? Lol

[Vastet]

I think coming back from the dead is sufficiently rare that anyone who did so would be able to do what they want (more or less) without any dissent. He will bear the scars proving he was killed, for those who would not believe.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

9 minutes ago, Vastet said:

I think coming back from the dead is sufficiently rare that anyone who did so would be able to do what they want (more or less) without any dissent. He will bear the scars proving he was killed, for those who would not believe.

He will be walking around breathing proven that he did not die. What kind of scars prove that you were dead?

His resurrection might be good enough for the people who saw his corpse but it is unlikely to be good enough for the majority of the North.

And even if they did believe would they want a zombie ruling them?

[autarkh]

The scars might not be enough by themselves. But when you add them to the witness testimony, Robb's will, and the presumptive victory in the battle of Winterfell--leading to a successful expulsion of the Boltons--that might do the trick. If skillfully used, Jon's reputation would start to become a legend. Then the whole "power resides where people think it resides" bit would take over.    

[Vastet]

"He will be walking around breathing proven that he did not die. What kind of scars prove that you were dead?"

Being stabbed to death would leave some pretty obvious scars. The people of Westeros might not have squat on our medical knowledge, but they know enough to be able to tell the difference between a cut and a deep wound. As they all happened at the same time, they'll all look the same. Showing he received them all at once. With no access to the idea of a transfusion, let alone the actual practice, anyone who looks at his chest should be quite capable of figuring out he should be dead. Maesters and veteran soldiers and healers especially.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

8 minutes ago, Vastet said:

"He will be walking around breathing proven that he did not die. What kind of scars prove that you were dead?"

Being stabbed to death would leave some pretty obvious scars. The people of Westeros might not have squat on our medical knowledge, but they know enough to be able to tell the difference between a cut and a deep wound. As they all happened at the same time, they'll all look the same. Showing he received them all at once. With no access to the idea of a transfusion, let alone the actual practice, anyone who looks at his chest should be quite capable of figuring out he should be dead. Maesters and veteran soldiers and healers especially.

So the North is being attacked by an undead army and you think the people of the North are going to want an undead man as their ruler? That makes no sense. Many will not believe he died and the superstitious who do are going to be split with some being scared of a living zombie being among them.

[Vastet]

Jon isn't undead. He's resurrected. Kinda significant difference there.

[norwaywolf123]

No jon has not fulfilled the oath.

Jon breaks the oath! Jaime has broken an oath! They dont need to die and the Night's Watch will need to change in oder to shield the realm! The enemy is the Others not the Wildlings!

[YOVMO]

I mean, technically yeah. But I don't think they have invented ambulance chasing lawyers in Game of Thrones. If there was some strip mall that had Edrick Snow Attorney at Law right next to some Tyroshi Tax Accountant maybe they could make an argument for it. The larger point, I think, is to whom would you make the argument? Jon has shown he can effectively a) rise from the dead and (b) get an army of wildlings to make the nights watch his bitch at command.

 

The only one capable of holding Jon to his vows is Jon himself and it seems that he has, with the help of Davos Pep Talker, decided "fuck it"