Theories on the assassination of Jon Snow at CB

[Greywater-Watch]

The general picture of what I get from reading the last posts (in fact after the last of mine) is that Jon Snow is a traitor. Here some of the points evoked, seen from my viewpoint:

• Beheading Janos Slynt was Jon's duty, as Slynt refused a command twice (once in public).
• The NW does not owe the Iron Throne any allegiance, because
  • the question of the succession to Robert Baratheon is open
  • the Iron Throne did not come to help the NW when asked (but Stannis did)
• Jon did everything to honour Bowen Marsh and Othell Yarwyck in their position as officers, inviting them regularly to his council meetings; both have proven not to accept a general and well reasoned decision of the Lord Commander (in fact already initiated by Mormont), i.e. to help the Wildlings survive. That behaviour is in fact close to treason, Jon showed himself probably much to gentle with both and would probably have been in his rights to strip Marsh and Yarwyck from their positions at the NW, degrading them to mere builders, stewarts or whatsoever.
• The idea to send Mance Rayder to Winterfell was Melisandre's. Jon agreed to it. Mance is none of the NW, so he and his Spearwomen have taken no vows, hence they can break none.
• Interfering with a turncloak, traitor such as Mance would make Jon a traitor too? Oh, come on. Who in the realm is not dealing with turncloaks and traitors, as long as they serve a purpose? If I follow this road, then for example you must call all those dealing with (and not killing him immediately) Theon Greyjoy after his treason to Robb Stark (Balon Greyjoy, Roose & Ramsay Bolton, Stannis) traitors/outlaws or whatever too. The list is endless when we pick another traitor (e.g. Jaime, Cersei) and all those who deal with them well knowing of their treason.

[sweetsunray]

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

It is difficult to conclude what all this means. Are there many Lannister toadies in CB aside from Slynt, or are most people there just holding to the very healthy conviction that it is stupid to anger or provoke Tywin Lannister if you want the help of the Iron Throne? I'd say the latter is much more likely.

Agreed. The actual traitors such as Slynt and Thorne are removed. The others are imo not as convinced traitors in heart as Slynt and Thorn, but they are coercable and afraid.

It's imo comparable to the mutiny plans at the Fist. We have Chett, Lark and others conspire to murdering Jeor, Sam and others in order to successfully defect the NW. The main conspiritors who created the plan in the first place died at the Fist or while running for their lives to Craster's. But the guys with the plan never made it to Craster's. However, the conspiritors who were reeled in before did make it to Craster's and they are grumbling and talking amongst each other and inciting other men against Craster's with their secret larder talk. And though they kill Craster to defend one of their own, when Craster vaults on the table to plant an axe into one of their own man's head, they then continue to act out the original plan - kill Jeor Mormont and any of the higher ups and those loyal to the watch. Heck, we learn from Craster's wives that somehow all the horses had been set free and on the loose, and they only managed to capture two of those. So, who set the horses free? That actually was part of the original plan at the Fist - to set some horses loose and create a distraction. From this we can infer that the remainder conspiritors who weren't originally the guys with the plan remembered the plan, discussed it at least that day, and grabbed the first opportunity to execute it.

The motives of Bown and Yarwick may not have been the same as Slynt and Thorne's, but they were willing to go along with it back then, and by the time they learn of Stannis's death they resurrect the main idea behind it - be a friend to King's Landing.

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

There is essentially nothing wrong with that.

Actually there is something wrong with that, because you have one king who actually saved their asses, and another one who's not helping it all, but promises conditional help when it's too late anyhow.

That aside, I agree it's completely unrealistic for anyone of the NW to remain neutral and unbound, when you have kings and hands threatening to terminate you or leave you out in the cold (pun intended) against danger if you don't choose an amenable LC or don't shelter that king's army for a while and surrender some empty ruined castles, when he has the men to take them from you anyway. You cannot not choose sides at this point.

Anyway - me mentioning a fact doesn't mean I'm making a moral assessment about it. So, I haven't got the foggiest why you seem to assume I did.

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I'm with you that Clydas is most likely to be the person to send Slynt's letter to King Tommen yet I'm not sure this is, generally, fishy or illegal considering that we have no idea whether a brother of the NW needs permission from the Lord Commander to sent a letter to the king or anybody else, really

Oh, come on. Really? This is a military order, and the commander of that military order is the LC. There's no way a military order would allow a man of the NW write a letter to someone of the realm with military and political power to report on the Commander's choices and actions, especially because the NW is not officially the IT's army. On top of that we normally have a maester at the NW handling the ravens and messages, who's bound by vows to be loyal to the master of the castle, in this case the LC. It's slanderous and treason. Heck, if someone of say Dany's army were to write a letter to king Robert and inform him what Dany's been up to, then he'd be commiting treason even if Dany did not expressly forbid that person from writing a letter to his aunty.

 

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The question to consider there is that we have no clue what information reaches the NW in the meantime. The idea that the people there have any indication that Cersei plans to assassinate Jon via the Kettleblack plan is very unlikely. But the news that Tywin is dead - which eventually reaches the Wall - certainly should have as strong an effect on the expectations of the black brothers that Tommen will prevail in the end as it had on Lord Godric Borrell.

You seemed to only have glanced at what I wrote, rather than actually read it. I said they would know that Slynt sent a letter to Cersei and what Slynt wrote in that letter to Cersei. I didn't say that they know about Cersei's Kettleback plan. I agree it's very unlikely they know anything about the Kettleback plan. In fact, if they knew that, it's more likely they wouldn't have assassinated Jon themselves.

 

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

There is little reason to assume that Marsh and the other officers were very determined to kill Jon while there was a good chance that Stannis would defeat the Boltons. If he accomplished that he would most likely remain in charge throughout the coming winter (due to the unlikelihood of winter warfare in the North) and the Watch could then work with him and defend the Wall with his and the help of the Northmen for the time being.

Jon's inclusion of the wildlings into all that was a tough nut but they would have tried to go through with it, one assumes. At least while it worked. After all, if there already was a conspiracy in place to assassinate Jon then the much better time would have been to do it before the wildlings came through the gate, not shortly thereafter. The deciding factor for the assassination clearly is the Pink Letter and Jon's subsequent actions.

I'm really scratchign my head here. Why are you repeating the point I was trying to make in the first place, as if it's something I'd disagree with.

Let me repeat: my point and conclusion at the end of the bullet list is that indeed the deciding factor to assassinate Jon is the news that Stannis is dead. If it had been a victory letter sent by Stannis, they wouldn't have assassinated Jon.

Hence, we DON'T disagree. For once, we AGREE. Hell has frozen over.

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

You also have no reason to assume that Clydas actually read the Pink Letter in advance. The letter looked very intimidating, being addressed to 'the Bastard'. You don't have to read that letter in advance to know that the content means trouble.

I have reasons to assume that. We know that brothers of the NW often know about the news received in letters meant for Jeor, despite Jeor not reading them in public. Sam reads the letters to Aemon, before they're passed on to Jeor, and he informs Jon about some of their content. Before Sam, Clydas would have been the one doing the reading to Aemon, since Chett can't read. And now, with Aemon nd Sam gone, for once Clydas wouldn't have read a letter meant for the LC beforehand, one that seems to be sent by the house of Bolton per the pink wax, and addressed in what seems to be a hostile manner to the LC? There's no reason to assume he didn't read the letter. 

 

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

There is neither evidence for any of this nor any reason to believe anything of that sort was necessary. We know that Selyse promised Ser Patrek Val's hand and that's all we need to explain why he might to try to sneak into Hardin's Tower. All Marsh and the assassins needed to do to get to Jon was to shadow him after he left the Shieldhall. And that they did or else they wouldn't have been there to kill him when they did.

Agreed. But it's a possible scenario.

 

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The chances that Mance actually got captured are pretty high. The man isn't a super hero, after all, and the whole abduction thing was clumsily executed and botched in the end. Only Theon and Jeyne got away. Winterfell is full of armed men, even with the Freys and Manderlys leaving the castle. The idea that a man like Mance could get out of there alive if the Boltons and other began looking for him is about zero.

The only chance I see for Mance evade capture is if he still had his glamor (or another glamor) with him, enabling him to become Rattleshirt again. They wouldn't be looking for that guy. But then, this would have been pretty risky, too, since nobody would recognize that man and people would quickly wonder who he was and what he was doing in the castle.

I think they're actually low. The man isn't a super hero, nor is Ramsay the boogeyman. It was clumsily executed by some spearwives, because one forgot the damn rope. But not all the spearwives were with fArya and Theon. The others were to join Mance somewhere non-descript. By the time the men at arms learn of fArya's escape they're running towards the spearwives with Theon and fArya, and likely to rush out of the castle to get to Theon and fArya asap. The spearwives with them would have fought to the dead and likely were killed in the fight with these men-at-arms before they could be interrogated.

The idea that Mance remained in the hall playing harp, while Freys and Manderly gather their men to exit from two different doors, while Theon and spearwives make their way to fArya's room, is preposterous. There was a getaway or hiding plan for them before they executed the rescue-bride plan. First the spearwives want Theon to tell them about a secret way in (and out) of the castle. Theon tells him, it was done with grapnel and hook. So, Mance and spearwives eliminate plan A to escape via secret passage. Then the spearwives want Theon to tell them about the crypts. He chases them off then. But Barbrey has the same request. What is she talking about in the crypts? Bones, loss of maidenhood, fArya, missing swords of people we know used the crypts as a hide-out. Mance's glamor is "Lord of Bones". Bael's story is about hiding in the crypts and plucking a rose. And Mance's plan is to rescue fArya. And if Barbrey hates Ned for not returning her dead husband's bones, she would hate Ramsay even worse for killing Domeric. Barbrey seems to be colluding with people, and one of them may actually be Mance, especially if she could struck a bargain with Mance that he'd kill Ramsay for her.

Angry men make mistakes. Ramsay is beyond angry. Ramsay hacks, but is not a trained sword fighter. If Mance manages to lure Ramsay to a spot where he can duel one on one (like say spiral stairs in the crypts), then Mance defeats Ramsay. Ramsay already has lost some of his men (murdered). And if Mance has say Barbrey as an accomplice, then that accomplice could make Roose believe that Ramsay left WF (with his hunting men). And the likely one to put the blame on would be Manderly anyway.

And yes. Mance would still have his glamor imo. He's not wearing it when pretending to be Abel. But if he puts on his ruby, and wear the bones beneath a shirt, he'd look like someone else.

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

There is no evidence for that. After all, you don't have a POV of those people, do you?

Oh wait. Earlier on you say that surely and reasonably it's the news of Stannis's death that sets off the assassination. And now you argue against the same point I'm making. Sounds like you're disagreeing just because I post something, doesn't matter whether you end up contradicting yourself and disagreeing with yourself in the same post

 

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Thorne dislikes Jon, but we don't know whether Thorne is involved in any of that. The idea that Marsh and others preferring to have good relations with the Iron Throne rather than with a doomed pretender like Stannis because they dislike the Stark bastard makes no sense at all.

I didn't say Thorne is involved at the end. I also didn't say Marsh hates Jon for being a Stark bastard like Thorne. But they're acting to please the pretender Tommen (both kings are pretenders), for whom the Starks are enemies and who didn't want Jon Snow, the Stark bastard, elected in the first place.

Also, you like to harp on repeatedly there's no evidence for that. There's no evidence for anything. Not for MMD killing Dany's son with a premedited plan or poisoning Drogo. Not for Joffrey giving the dagger to the catspaw and ask  him to kill Bran. Not for Olenna poisoning Joffrey by dropping a piece of Sansa's hairnet in Joffrey's cup.  Not for Stannis being dead. Not for Mance and spearwives being captured. Not for the author of the Pink Letter being Ramsay. Not for Sandor being the gravedigger at Quiet Isle. Not for Will being (un)dead. Not for Lyanna having birthed a son. Well, you get my point...

 

[The Fattest Leech]

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Jon's inclusion of the wildlings into all that was a tough nut but they would have tried to go through with it, one assumes. At least while it worked. After all, if there already was a conspiracy in place to assassinate Jon then the much better time would have been to do it before the wildlings came through the gate, not shortly thereafter. The deciding factor for the assassination clearly is the Pink Letter and Jon's subsequent actions.

Um, you seem to want to constantly walk right past book text that shows you what you are saying doesn't exist. They sent Jon out alone to be killed by Mance before the Wildlings came through the gate. Jon was still recovering from his injury, so not in good fighting condition at all, and they send him out alone into a Wildling army camp to kill their king.

A Storm of Swords - Jon X

"M'lord," Janos Slynt reminded him. "You'll address me—"

"I'll go, my lord. But you are making a mistake, my lord. You are sending the wrong man, my lord. Just the sight of me is going to anger Mance. My lord would have a better chance of reaching terms if he sent—"

"Terms?" Ser Alliser chuckled.

"Janos Slynt does not make terms with lawless savages, Lord Snow. No, he does not."

"We're not sending you to talk with Mance Rayder," Ser Alliser said. "We're sending you to kill him."

The wind whistled through the bars, and Jon Snow shivered. His leg was throbbing, and his head. He was not fit to kill a kitten, yet here he was. The trap had teeth. With Maester Aemon insisting on Jon's innocence, Lord Janos had not dared to leave him in the ice to die. This was better. "Our honor means no more than our lives, so long as the realm is safe," Qhorin Halfhand had said in the Frostfangs. He must remember that. Whether he slew Mance or only tried and failed, the free folk would kill him. Even desertion was impossible, if he'd been so inclined; to Mance he was a proven liar and betrayer.

Quote

...

There is no evidence for that, either. Thorne dislikes Jon, but we don't know whether Thorne is involved in any of that. The idea that Marsh and others preferring to have good relations with the Iron Throne rather than with a doomed pretender like Stannis because they dislike the Stark bastard makes no sense at all. We also don't know what the plan were before the assassination or why they killed him when they did. But Jon thinking his policies could continue in case of Stannis' death was unrealistic, and his decision to march against Winterfell was treason.

 

Two different things going on here, as I mentioned before. Thorne never liked Jon because he is a Stark and Ned was partially to blame (in his eyes) for him being sent to the Wall after Robert's Rebellion.

What Slynt is doing is playing with politics of King's Landing that has nothing to do with the military order of the Watch. Thorne takes the hand to KL and is ignored. Cersei and Qyburn talk about diverting men from the NW to their own personal gain. And Tywin is not a real help either. What does he do? Slynt is an irritating name dropper that thinks there is something in a name that will protect him, which we see that doesn't happen.

Stannis is the only one who shows up for the call, which is to save the realm.

[kissdbyfire]

5 hours ago, Greywater-Watch said:

The general picture of what I get from reading the last posts (in fact after the last of mine) is that Jon Snow is a traitor. Here some of the points evoked, seen from my viewpoint:

• Beheading Janos Slynt was Jon's duty, as Slynt refused a command twice (once in public).

Exactly! Actually, beheading Slynt was a very good thing, like, say, planting a tree or rescuing a kitten - it makes the world a better place! 

 

Quote

• The NW does not owe the Iron Throne any allegiance, because
  • the question of the succession to Robert Baratheon is open
  • the Iron Throne did not come to help the NW when asked (but Stannis did) 

Again, agree 100%.

Quote

• Jon did everything to honour Bowen Marsh and Othell Yarwyck in their position as officers, inviting them regularly to his council meetings; both have proven not to accept a general and well reasoned decision of the Lord Commander (in fact already initiated by Mormont), i.e. to help the Wildlings survive. That behaviour is in fact close to treason, Jon showed himself probably much to gentle with both and would probably have been in his rights to strip Marsh and Yarwyck from their positions at the NW, degrading them to mere builders, stewarts or whatsoever.

This.

And since we're talking about treason and whether Jon is a traitor... The way I see it, it doesn't even matter.

The importance of vows, and duty versus honour. Who was more honourable, Jaime, who killed the king he'd sworn to protect, or all the other KG who stood at Aerys and Rhaella's chamber doors while Aerys viciously raped and abused his wife? 

A Storm of Swords - Jaime VIII 

Ser Meryn got a stubborn look on his face. "Are you telling us not to obey the king?"

"If Tommen wants you to saddle his horse, obey him. If he tells you to kill his horse, come to me."

To blindly follow vows and orders always, no matter what they are, is stupid and cowardly, plain and simple. Doing the right thing means you will sometimes find yourself in a situation where you will have to disobey an order or break a vow. It's called doing the right thing, not doing the easy thing. 

There's also the fact that Martin is a very deliberate writer. And I don't think it's a coincidence that we have Dumb and Dumber Marsh and Yarwick using the same type of stereotypical and demeaning  adjectives for the free folk that were commonly applied to slaves: Sloppy, careless, lazy… (and yeah, I know it's Yarwick only who says that).

My point is, maybe the IT and some in the NW will see Jon as a traitor; Jon himself thinks about it. And again, it doesn't matter if he is, because he is doing the right thing. 

Letting the free folk through is the right thing.

 

Trying to save as many of those stranded at Hardhome as possible is the right thing. And in this this case, it's the right thing both from a humanitarian viewpoint but from a strategic one as well, because every last one of them will be wightified if they die there. 

 

Quote

• The idea to send Mance Rayder to Winterfell was Melisandre's. Jon agreed to it. Mance is none of the NW, so he and his Spearwomen have taken no vows, hence they can break none.
• Interfering with a turncloak, traitor such as Mance would make Jon a traitor too? Oh, come on. Who in the realm is not dealing with turncloaks and traitors, as long as they serve a purpose? If I follow this road, then for example you must call all those dealing with (and not killing him immediately) Theon Greyjoy after his treason to Robb Stark (Balon Greyjoy, Roose & Ramsay Bolton, Stannis) traitors/outlaws or whatever too. The list is endless when we pick another traitor (e.g. Jaime, Cersei) and all those who deal with them well knowing of their treason.

 

And lastly, even deciding to march against Ramsay with the wildlings is the right thing, even if it is "treason". 

 

[Lord Varys]

2 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

Agreed. The actual traitors such as Slynt and Thorne are removed. The others are imo not as convinced traitors in heart as Slynt and Thorn, but they are coercable and afraid.

I'm not sure if 'traitor' is the correct to refer to those men. What did they betray exactly?

2 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

It's imo comparable to the mutiny plans at the Fist. We have Chett, Lark and others conspire to murdering Jeor, Sam and others in order to successfully defect the NW. The main conspiritors who created the plan in the first place died at the Fist or while running for their lives to Craster's. But the guys with the plan never made it to Craster's. However, the conspiritors who were reeled in before did make it to Craster's and they are grumbling and talking amongst each other and inciting other men against Craster's with their secret larder talk. And though they kill Craster to defend one of their own, when Craster vaults on the table to plant an axe into one of their own man's head, they then continue to act out the original plan - kill Jeor Mormont and any of the higher ups and those loyal to the watch. Heck, we learn from Craster's wives that somehow all the horses had been set free and on the loose, and they only managed to capture two of those. So, who set the horses free? That actually was part of the original plan at the Fist - to set some horses loose and create a distraction. From this we can infer that the remainder conspiritors who weren't originally the guys with the plan remembered the plan, discussed it at least that day, and grabbed the first opportunity to execute it.

This is an interesting idea and there is perhaps some truth to that but we don't know whether Dirk and Ollo Lophand were part of Chett's cabal or not (I'm not sure they were else Chett wouldn't have been so dependent on a man like Small Paul). Sweet Donnel Hill was and he returned to Castle Black without committing any treason.

2 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

The motives of Bown and Yarwick may not have been the same as Slynt and Thorne's, but they were willing to go along with it back then, and by the time they learn of Stannis's death they resurrect the main idea behind it - be a friend to King's Landing.

I'm not sure they care all that much about KL - they may only care about Roose and Ramsay. If they defeated Stannis they can destroy the wildlings and the Watch, too: KL should have become a secondary concern after the woman took over. They are not likely to take Cersei all that seriously.

2 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

Actually there is something wrong with that, because you have one king who actually saved their asses, and another one who's not helping it all, but promises conditional help when it's too late anyhow.

Sure, but Marsh seems to be a man who can think in long terms. He has lived through quite a few winters at the Wall and ensured the survival of the Watch by ensuring they have enough provisions. It is well and good that Stannis saved their asses from Mance, but if Stannis' further actions are going to cause a famine in the coming winter then this isn't all that good. The same goes for a continuing civil war in the North.

2 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

That aside, I agree it's completely unrealistic for anyone of the NW to remain neutral and unbound, when you have kings and hands threatening to terminate you or leave you out in the cold (pun intended) against danger if you don't choose an amenable LC or don't shelter that king's army for a while and surrender some empty ruined castles, when he has the men to take them from you anyway. You cannot not choose sides at this point.

Anyway - me mentioning a fact doesn't mean I'm making a moral assessment about it. So, I haven't got the foggiest why you seem to assume I did.

The point is that everything connected to politics is important in Westeros. Electing Jon Snow Lord Commander is a political statement, even if the brothers didn't intend it such a way. Jon should have been aware of that, doing anything in his power to convince the Iron Throne that he wasn't trying to take sides. Instead he did the opposite.

2 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

Oh, come on. Really? This is a military order, and the commander of that military order is the LC. There's no way a military order would allow a man of the NW write a letter to someone of the realm with military and political power to report on the Commander's choices and actions, especially because the NW is not officially the IT's army. On top of that we normally have a maester at the NW handling the ravens and messages, who's bound by vows to be loyal to the master of the castle, in this case the LC. It's slanderous and treason. Heck, if someone of say Dany's army were to write a letter to king Robert and inform him what Dany's been up to, then he'd be commiting treason even if Dany did not expressly forbid that person from writing a letter to his aunty.

There is no evidence for this because we know from AGoT that Jon can write and send letters to Winterfell without the Lord Commander or his maester first reading them. We don't even know whether a maester at a (NW) castle is bound to report on the people sending a raven to some other castle.

I'm with you that Aemon and Sam most definitely would have told Jon had Slynt sent a letter to King Tommen through them but that doesn't mean Aemon and Sam would have been honor-bound to do so.

I'm not sure whether a black brother is committing treason when he is informing the Iron Throne on what the Lord Commander of the Night's Watch is up to. The Night's Watch and its Lord Commander are not at war with the Iron Throne, so there is nothing wrong with Slynt writing a letter to Tommen unless the Lord Commander has explicitly forbidden Slynt to do such a thing (which he didn't, as far as we know).

2 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

You seemed to only have glanced at what I wrote, rather than actually read it. I said they would know that Slynt sent a letter to Cersei and what Slynt wrote in that letter to Cersei. I didn't say that they know about Cersei's Kettleback plan. I agree it's very unlikely they know anything about the Kettleback plan. In fact, if they knew that, it's more likely they wouldn't have assassinated Jon themselves.

I have read what you wrote and I aware that you did not state that. But your general point as per your introduction was that the seed of the assassination would go to those early letters between Tywin and Slynt. And I'd contest that. I think that Jon's assassination doesn't have much to do with the plans Slynt, Thorne, and Marsh had when they wanted to ensure Slynt's election to the office of the Lord Commander. Keep in mind that this had nothing to do with Jon Snow. Jon Snow never was a candidate for Lord Commander until he got elected.

2 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

I'm really scratchign my head here. Why are you repeating the point I was trying to make in the first place, as if it's something I'd disagree with.

Let me repeat: my point and conclusion at the end of the bullet list is that indeed the deciding factor to assassinate Jon is the news that Stannis is dead. If it had been a victory letter sent by Stannis, they wouldn't have assassinated Jon.

Hence, we DON'T disagree. For once, we AGREE. Hell has frozen over.

So I can't support your view when we are in agreement? I was commenting on what you wrote; such comments don't always have to contradict you.

2 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

I have reasons to assume that. We know that brothers of the NW often know about the news received in letters meant for Jeor, despite Jeor not reading them in public. Sam reads the letters to Aemon, before they're passed on to Jeor, and he informs Jon about some of their content. Before Sam, Clydas would have been the one doing the reading to Aemon, since Chett can't read. And now, with Aemon nd Sam gone, for once Clydas wouldn't have read a letter meant for the LC beforehand, one that seems to be sent by the house of Bolton per the pink wax, and addressed in what seems to be a hostile manner to the LC? There's no reason to assume he didn't read the letter. 

We don't know Jeor Mormont's policy on letters addressed to him. If he allowed Aemon to break the seal then he was also allowing Clydas and whoever overheard Clydas reading the letters to Aemon to know the contents of such letters.

But we have no idea whether that's the case nor whether the letters read to Aemon by Clydas were actually letters addressed to the Lord Commander. Letters addressed to Maester Aemon would have to be read to him by Clydas or somebody else.

We know from ADwD that Clydas does, in fact, not read letters addressed to Lord Commander Snow because Jon receives two letters (one by Ramsay and another by Stannis) which seals were definitely unbroken.

There is a chance that Clydas actually broke the seal of the Pink Letter and later resealed it with that smear of pink wax not depicting the sigil of House Bolton yet there is actually no reason for him not to be afraid simply by the way the letter looked. He doesn't need to have read it to be afraid. He can guess what it might mean and be afraid because he fears Jon's reaction and the future.

2 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

Agreed. But it's a possible scenario.

A lot of stuff is possible. But this is a rather convoluted scenario and thus less likely that Ser Patrek just being stupid enough to not heed the warnings that Wun Wun and Val both are quite dangerous.

2 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

I think they're actually low. The man isn't a super hero, nor is Ramsay the boogeyman. It was clumsily executed by some spearwives, because one forgot the damn rope. But not all the spearwives were with fArya and Theon. The others were to join Mance somewhere non-descript. By the time the men at arms learn of fArya's escape they're running towards the spearwives with Theon and fArya, and likely to rush out of the castle to get to Theon and fArya asap. The spearwives with them would have fought to the dead and likely were killed in the fight with these men-at-arms before they could be interrogated.

You have no reason to assume that the spearwives fought to the death, especially not with George often enough stressing the fact that characters that are not confirmed to be dead are most likely not dead. Ramsay claims he has captured himself some spearwives and I believe that this is not unlikely. Somebody must have told Ramsay that Abel is Mance Rayder. They might, perhaps, have tried to not allow the Boltons to capture them alive but one or two might have failed at that. It is difficult to kill yourself if you don't have the time or the means to do so.

Your assumption that the men-at-arms realizing that Jeyne was trying to escape would all try to prevent the escape instead of sending one or two goons back to the keep to inform Lords Roose and Ramsay isn't very likely, in my opinion. 

We know that some of the smaller gates of Winterfell were frozen shut and thus not easily opened, making it even less likely that the men would be able to get quickly to the place where Theon and Jeyne jumped off the wall.

2 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

The idea that Mance remained in the hall playing harp, while Freys and Manderly gather their men to exit from two different doors, while Theon and spearwives make their way to fArya's room, is preposterous. There was a getaway or hiding plan for them before they executed the rescue-bride plan. First the spearwives want Theon to tell them about a secret way in (and out) of the castle. Theon tells him, it was done with grapnel and hook. So, Mance and spearwives eliminate plan A to escape via secret passage. Then the spearwives want Theon to tell them about the crypts. He chases them off then. But Barbrey has the same request. What is she talking about in the crypts? Bones, loss of maidenhood, fArya, missing swords of people we know used the crypts as a hide-out. Mance's glamor is "Lord of Bones". Bael's story is about hiding in the crypts and plucking a rose. And Mance's plan is to rescue fArya. And if Barbrey hates Ned for not returning her dead husband's bones, she would hate Ramsay even worse for killing Domeric. Barbrey seems to be colluding with people, and one of them may actually be Mance, especially if she could struck a bargain with Mance that he'd kill Ramsay for her.

That is all a lot of speculation. I'm with you that Mance had a plan. But having a plan isn't the same as successfully executing it, right? And Mance and Barbrey working together is far too far-fetched for me. If Barbrey wanted Ramsay dead she would convince Roose (or one of her own loyal men) to kill him, not an outsider. The woman is ruling one of the great houses of the North. She should have more than enough men to do her dirty work for her, just as Roose himself has.

And one really wonders whether Roose and Ramsay would not search the entire castle if they can reasonably rule out that Abel and his women escaped through one of the gates. The crypts are actually a pretty obvious hiding place, especially after Lady Barbrey reopened them.

2 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

Angry men make mistakes. Ramsay is beyond angry. Ramsay hacks, but is not a trained sword fighter. If Mance manages to lure Ramsay to a spot where he can duel one on one (like say spiral stairs in the crypts), then Mance defeats Ramsay. Ramsay already has lost some of his men (murdered). And if Mance has say Barbrey as an accomplice, then that accomplice could make Roose believe that Ramsay left WF (with his hunting men). And the likely one to put the blame on would be Manderly anyway.

That is even more far-fetched. The idea that Ramsay would search places all by himself and nobody would end up realizing what's going on is quite unlikely. Barbrey Dustin may hate Ramsay but she might also love/like Roose. And if she wants to ensure the victory of House Bolton she would be patient enough to take out Ramsay only when he has no further uses for her and Roose. Keep in mind that Theon expecting that Ramsay is going to lead a Bolton army to the village might very well be the truth. In fact, that's the cleanest and best way for Roose and Barbrey to rid themselves of Ramsay. Both are most likely going to blame Ramsay for the loss of 'Arya'.

2 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

And yes. Mance would still have his glamor imo. He's not wearing it when pretending to be Abel. But if he puts on his ruby, and wear the bones beneath a shirt, he'd look like someone else.

I don't think you can wear those bones beneath a shirt. But, yeah, there is a chance that he still has the glamor. But we don't know whether he has the skills to actually activate it.

2 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

Oh wait. Earlier on you say that surely and reasonably it's the news of Stannis's death that sets off the assassination. And now you argue against the same point I'm making. Sounds like you're disagreeing just because I post something, doesn't matter whether you end up contradicting yourself and disagreeing with yourself in the same post

The point is that we don't have confirmation on why they did what they did. We only know when they did it and can thus guess at their motivations. But we have no proof, although it seems pretty clear to me that Marsh didn't want to kill Jon. He weeps when he does the deed, after all.

2 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

I didn't say Thorne is involved at the end. I also didn't say Marsh hates Jon for being a Stark bastard like Thorne. But they're acting to please the pretender Tommen (both kings are pretenders), for whom the Starks are enemies and who didn't want Jon Snow, the Stark bastard, elected in the first place.

Tommen isn't a pretender. He is the King on the Iron Throne. Pretenders are would-be kings and Tommen is almost universally acknowledged as the King of Westeros throughout AFfC/ADwD.

And we don't know whether pleasing Tommen had anything to do with the assassination. It is much more likely, in my opinion, that they intended to please Ramsay and Roose and prevent the their own deaths at their hands as well as the end of the NW as an institution. The Boltons are the ones with an army near their door, not Tommen or the Lannisters.

2 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

Also, you like to harp on repeatedly there's no evidence for that. There's no evidence for anything. Not for MMD killing Dany's son with a premedited plan or poisoning Drogo. Not for Joffrey giving the dagger to the catspaw and ask  him to kill Bran. Not for Olenna poisoning Joffrey by dropping a piece of Sansa's hairnet in Joffrey's cup.  Not for Stannis being dead. Not for Mance and spearwives being captured. Not for the author of the Pink Letter being Ramsay. Not for Sandor being the gravedigger at Quiet Isle. Not for Will being (un)dead. Not for Lyanna having birthed a son. Well, you get my point...

There is evidence and evidence. There is textual evidence for a lot of the stuff you list, either direct or indirect evidence. But there is as of yet no textual evidence on a lot of other stuff you have put forth.

3 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Um, you seem to want to constantly walk right past book text that shows you what you are saying doesn't exist. They sent Jon out alone to be killed by Mance before the Wildlings came through the gate. Jon was still recovering from his injury, so not in good fighting condition at all, and they send him out alone into a Wildling army camp to kill their king.

That is completely irrelevant to the discussion because Jon the black brother/turncloak isn't the same as Lord Commander Snow. While I agree that Slynt and Thorne tried to get him killed, Marsh had nothing to do with that nor has Jon any way to prove that he is telling the truth about Qhorin's last command. We know he tells the truth but the people in the books have no way to confirm it.

If Jon was lying he would pretty much tell the same thing as Jon does in the books.

3 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said:

 

Two different things going on here, as I mentioned before. Thorne never like Jon because he is a Stark and Ned was partially to blame (in his eyes) for him being sent to the Wall after Robert's Rebellion.

Do we really know this? Ned was a rebel and a traitor in Thorne's eyes who fought for House Targaryen until the bitter end yet does this mean he actually blames Ned Stark for ending up at the Wall? I don't remember Thorne ever talking about that. It is just as likely that Thorne just grows to resent and hate Jon Snow because the boy challenged and undermined his authority, working together with a Lannister dwarf to accomplish this.

[The Fattest Leech]

24 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Do we really know this? Ned was a rebel and a traitor in Thorne's eyes who fought for House Targaryen until the bitter end yet does this mean he actually blames Ned Stark for ending up at the Wall? I don't remember Thorne ever talking about that. It is just as likely that Thorne just grows to resent and hate Jon Snow because the boy challenged and undermined his authority, working together with a Lannister dwarf to accomplish this.

Yes, it is because of his history with the Starks. I am looking for the main quote, it may have to come much later because I am super busy filling custom orders of stuff and should not be online, but this is the first one I can find right away.

A Storm of Swords - Jon IX

"I don't know what your skull is stuffed with. My lord."

"Lord Snow is nothing if not arrogant," said Ser Alliser. "He murdered Qhorin just as his fellow turncloaks did Lord Mormont. It would not surprise me to learn that it was all part of the same fell plot. Benjen Stark may well have a hand in all this as well. For all we know, he is sitting in Mance Rayder's tent even now. You know these Starks, my lord."

"I do," said Janos Slynt. "I know them too well."

[sweetsunray]

6 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

This is an interesting idea and there is perhaps some truth to that but we don't know whether Dirk and Ollo Lophand were part of Chett's cabal or not (I'm not sure they were else Chett wouldn't have been so dependent on a man like Small Paul). Sweet Donnel Hill was and he returned to Castle Black without committing any treason.

Dirk and Qarl is named in aSoS prologue as part of the conspiritors. Sweet Donnel was also named and he's the sole named conspiritor of the Fist who did not participate with the mutiny at Craster's. Chett also noted that during Jeor's speech at the Fist about planning to take on Mance's oncoming army, Sweet Donnel fervently shouts along, very convincingly. So, at the Fist, Sweet Donnel already revealed he might be the least interested in executing the original plan. Heck, it's as likely that Sweet Donnel only pretended to be a conspiritor to learn as much as he could.  But Dirk belongs to the original mutineers, those who were to kill.

Quote

Lark had wanted to bring in twice that number, but what could you expect from some stupid fishbreath Sisterman? Whisper a word in the wrong ear and before you knew it you'd be short a head. No, fourteen was a good number, enough to do what needed doing but not so many that they couldn't keep the secret. Chett had recruited most of them himself. Small Paul was one of his; the strongest man on the Wall, even if he was slower than a dead snail. He'd once broken a wildling's back with a hug. They had Dirk as well, named for his favorite weapon, and the little grey man the brothers called Softfoot, who'd raped a hundred women in his youth, and liked to boast how none had ever seen nor heard him until he shoved it up inside them.

[...]

Softfoot and Small Paul would kill the Old Bear, Dirk would do Blane, and Lark and his cousins would silence Bannen and old Dywen, to keep them from sniffing after their trail. They'd been caching food for a fortnight, and Sweet Donnel and Clubfoot Karl would have the horses ready.

Two conspiritors went unnamed, and we only know the name of one of Lark's cousins. But aside from Sweet Donnell and those that died at the Fist, all the other conspiritors are part of the mutiny. Ollo may or may not have been one of the unnamed conspiritors. But Dirk and Karl certainly were. It's not illogical that they would be part of the mutiny, since they intended to run away before even being chased by wights and Others (despite knowing of two wights that tried to assassinate Jeor in CB). They're cowards and fools ignoring the actual danger, except apparently for Sweet Donnel.

If the parallel holds, then one of the CB mutineers, might have had a change of heart at the time and actually betray the fellow mutineers, like Sweet Donnel had.

6 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I'm not sure if 'traitor' is the correct to refer to those men. What did they betray exactly?

Sending a letter to betray your lord commander is treason.

Thorne trying to get a man elected for Tywin's pleasure for an IT that has numerous times refused to send any help and laughed at him in his face for the real danger, knowing full well it antagonizes the king-pretender who actually is helping them is a betrayal to his vows. Thorne isn't protecting the realm of men by those actions.

6 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

It is well and good that Stannis saved their asses from Mance, but if Stannis' further actions are going to cause a famine in the coming winter then this isn't all that good. The same goes for a continuing civil war in the North.

Jon procured loans for food to buy. The IT can't stop ships with food being sent from Braavos, nor can they prevent Westeros merchants from going to Braavos.

 

6 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

There is no evidence for this because we know from AGoT that Jon can write and send letters to Winterfell without the Lord Commander or his maester first reading them.

Quote? My memory completely fails me on that.

 

6 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I'm not sure whether a black brother is committing treason when he is informing the Iron Throne on what the Lord Commander of the Night's Watch is up to. The Night's Watch and its Lord Commander are not at war with the Iron Throne, so there is nothing wrong with Slynt writing a letter to Tommen unless the Lord Commander has explicitly forbidden Slynt to do such a thing (which he didn't, as far as we know).

Utter total And I further refrain from argumenting with such a nonsensical stance - other than say it's one of the most absurdest things I've ever read on these boards as an argument.

 

6 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Ramsay claims he has captured himself some spearwives and I believe that this is not unlikely.

The author of the Pink Letter claims a lot of stuff, such as a battle that lasted 7 days.

 

6 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

If Barbrey wanted Ramsay dead she would convince Roose (or one of her own loyal men) to kill him, not an outsider. The woman is ruling one of the great houses of the North. She should have more than enough men to do her dirty work for her, just as Roose himself has.

Roose already pointed out the issue of kinslaying. He doesn't dare to kill Ramsay, because he's of his blood. Barbrey is not actual blood, but she is kin to Roose and thus to Ramsay through the marriage of her sister with Roose. In fact, with people calling Theon a kinslayer because he allegedly had two Stark boys murdered while he grew up with them as hostage-ward, implies that "kinslaying" extends beyond "blood". Hence Barbrey cannot risk ordering one of her men to do it. But if Mance comes up with a plan that includes killing Ramsay, at his own suggestion, then she has Ramsay killed without remotely being regarded a kinslayer.

 

6 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Tommen isn't a pretender. He is the King on the Iron Throne. Pretenders are would-be kings and Tommen is almost universally acknowledged as the King of Westeros throughout AFfC/ADwD.

Tommen, Stannis and fAegon and Dany are all throne pretenders. Tommen pretends to be a Baratheon, while he isn't. That he does not know this himself doesn't matter. Stannis is Robert's actual heir, but he doesn't have the throne. fAegon and Dany claim to have pretense on the IT on account of their Targ blood, while the actual Targ dynasty was ousted.

Dorne does not drink to Tommen, sends Qyburn Quentyn to Mereen to try and make an alliance with Dany and sends Arianne on a mission to verify the truth of fAegon and possible form an alliance with him. The Iron Islands do not recognize Tommen as their king. Instead both Euron and his brother try to make an alliance with Dany. fAegon has "friends in the Reach". The BwB doesn't recognize Tommen and they have the full support and help of the RL smallfolk. Blackfish and Blackwood and Mallister were forced to surrender. Them and others like Vance and Piper are in Jaime's words "still wolifsh at heart". The Vale is led by LF who harbors a fugitive Sansa who's accused of kingslaying. Oh and he's also the supposed LP of the Riverlands. Manderly, the Umbers, Alys Karstark, Glovers, northern Mountain Clans, and Mormonts are pro-Stark and ally with Stannis. Meanwhile the Crownlands with the ward of Rosby and Bronn at Stokeworth begin to sabotage KL.

Where's this so called universal acknowledgment of Tommen as king of the IT? I don't see it. Three and a half of the seven kingdoms are plotting to ally with another of the pretenders (Iron Islands, Dorne and Reach and half of the North). Two have half the houses fighting or helping fighters against the IT (RL and North). One plans to betray and ally with Starks (well Vale for Sansa Stark). And several houses at KL's doorstep are about ready to start a food blockade. The only kingdom where King Tommen is universally acknowledged as king is in the Westerlands, that is exactly one kingdom of the seven

6 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The crypts are actually a pretty obvious hiding place, especially after Lady Barbrey reopened them.

And yet everybody needs to ask Theon where those crypts are. Guess who isn't around anymore to ask.

 

6 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That is even more far-fetched. The idea that Ramsay would search places all by himself and nobody would end up realizing what's going on is quite unlikely.

I didn't say he'd be searching all by himself. I alluded to the spiral stairs allowing only for people to enter one by one.

 

6 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

But we don't know whether he has the skills to actually activate it.

Where does it say it needs to be activated? That's in Mel's control. The glamor is tied to the bone shirt and the ruby. Don't wear them, and Mance looks like Mance. Wear them and Mance looks like Rattleshirt.

 

6 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

But there is as of yet no textual evidence on a lot of other stuff you have put forth.

Oh but there is. It's the text that suggests those ideas, although I agree that we don't necessarily have that for the Patrek distraction.

[BRANDON GREYSTARK]

The plan to assassinate Jon Snow was hatched long before he allowed the Wildlings through the wall .

[Texas Hold Em]

On 12/26/2016 at 11:32 PM, Mr. Bowen Marsh said:

I have to disagree with you.  Bowen Marsh did what he had to do because Jon Snow was about to do something even more terrible than the treasons he had already committed.  Somebody needed to stop Jon.  Jon was already out of control and had been ever since he decided to let Mance Rayder get out of execution to rescue his sister Arya. 

 

Jon was the aggressor in the scenario.  He was about to attack the Boltons to rescue Arya.  All because he got caught doing something he wasn't supposed to be doing in the first place. 

On 12/26/2016 at 9:44 PM, Moiraine Sedai said:

 

 

It was Jon's attempts to rescue fake Arya that started this whole disagreement with House Bolton.  Jon started that quarrel and Ramsay still gave him a way out.  It was Jon's choice and he made a really bad one when he chose to attack instead of complying with the request in the letter.

Correct.  Jon stuck his nose where it didn't belong.  That's putting it mildly.  Sending his agents to pose as musicians to make off with the bride of the son of the Warden of the North was practically the equivalent of Jon declaring war on the Boltons. 

[bemused]

This is the first chance I've had to really engage (or even keep track of what's being discussed) since mid August.
Thanks for linking to those two old threads of mine, @Clegane'sPup .. some of my thinking has fine tuned since then and I've become aware of more hints.in the interim.
I'll just wade in at random, here... 

On 12/21/2016 at 5:07 AM, Lord Varys said:

..<snip>...

And as long as we don't know whether other officers/leaders were among the assassins I'd consider him (Bowen) the main architect of the assassination because he is the only important man among the assassins we know.

But the rangers are pretty much destroyed as a group. Mormont took pretty much all of the rangers with him beyond the Wall and only very few people came back from the Fist and Craster's. This also includes a number of rangers from the Shadow Tower under Qhorin which teamed up with Mormont.

Another portion of people were killed at the Bridge of Skulls when Marsh led men from the Shadow Tower and Castle Black against the Weeper.

..<snip>...

Also keep in mind that Marsh led quite a few Watchmen against the Weeper at the Bridge of Skulls. He might not be a ranger but he still commanded a decent portion of the black brothers into battle against the wildlings, and might thus actually have a decent following of loyal people among the Watch. Alliser Thorne, on the other hand, is simply neither well-liked nor popular because he routinely mocked and humiliated a lot of future Watchmen for over a decade.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that the Pink Letter caused the assassination as it happened. But this doesn't confirm that there weren't talks earlier on about an assassination and that Marsh and the others only stalled their hands because they feared that Stannis would execute them all upon his return.

 ...<snip>...

 there is little chance that Tormund's undisciplined men are likely to defeat even a fraction of Roose's well-trained personal troops, not to mention a Bolton-Dustin-Ryswell coalition.

Bowen has been shown to be something of a dim bulb in the estimation of characters that are themselves presented as anything but (Mormont, Mance and so forth). So we have reason to doubt that he's capable of concocting much of a plot (consider the wisdom of sealing the gates, hoarding the food and hoping for the best - never mind that the wall is dangerously undermanned) .. but we do see that he's relatively easily taken in, if you know what buttons to push.

Bowen lost 100 men at the Bridge of Skulls (chasing the Weeper on the wrong side of the Wall) - that's the better part of the men Mormont left behind. I seriously doubt he could have much of a following among the NW himself, except perhaps among the stewards, since they're under his direct command.

Thorne, on the other hand ,is very clever. Though hated for his vindictiveness and unable to muster much of a following, personally (evidenced by the early withdrawal of his name from the candidates for LC), he's adept at working on the resentments of others, leading them to achieve the results he wants. His manipulation of Slynt is the most obvious example of this, but there may be others somewhat less obvious. I'll come back to them.

On 12/21/2016 at 3:58 PM, Lord Varys said:

A very important consider in all this is also Cregan Karstark. George brings us back to this guy in Jon's last chapter and we simply have no idea what for.

 I'm interested to see how this plays out. Yarwick draws Jon's attention to the snow piling up against the wall, but Jon himself thinks of the men in the cells. I'm sure Cregan will feature in some future action, but my bet would be as a separate , complicating factor .. probably not as a part of the assassination plan, proper.

On 12/22/2016 at 4:22 AM, Lord Varys said:

Still, it depends who has the better weapons or access to weapons at all, and the like. And one has to wait and see how the assassins spin the assassination. How many people actually saw Jon being stabbed by whom? The assassins could have surrounded him so that witnesses might not have seen what happened.

The Watch might certainly be able to spin this in a way that Jon had to be executed. He openly broke his vows and that's not a wildling issue. It is an internal matter of the Night's Watch. Unless Marsh is utterly stupid he is not going to openly attack the wildlings if he has no chance of winning that battle. And the willdings are no united power bloc. They might begin to think for themselves again.

He might certainly have plans to rid himself of the wildlings. Say, by motivating them to continue with the Hardhome mission, etc.

..<snip>...

And as to Mance - he did the best he could to break through the Wall at Castle Black. We don't yet know whether the Others and wights can actually walk through the gates once they are no longer blocked. Could very well be. Mance certainly helped them with that. In addition, his victory would have meant the destruction of the NW, and a Wall that's no longer guarded is very unlikely to keep the Others back for long when they finally make their move.

As far as I can see there are four would be assassins that we know of, in the shieldhall - Bowen, Wick, Lew and Alf. I don't think Othell was in on the plan... Yes, he's a follower , but only up to a point. After he changed his mind during the LC choosing, I doubt that he would be included in the plan. The fact that he changed his mind at that time shows that he did give some genuine consideration to what was best for the watch and did not follow the suggestions he was being fed by Bowen and Alliser. We don't hear "treason" pass his lips, and throughout, he partakes of Jon's personal hospitality whole heartedly, while Bowen does not. ... So, I think it would be difficult for four men to successfully "surround" Jon - hiding what was happening from the view of all onlookers.

There's no way to spin the attempted assassination as an execution, since none of those present have the authority to order one.They can only hope that their characterization of Jon will be accepted after the fact, and provide their mutiny a degree of excusability.

As for Marsh and the wildlings, Marsh is pretty stupid , if not utterly so ..but hey, one thing he excels at is counting ...

I agree that the reading of the pink letter marks a major turning point , but Jon's decision to leave the NW out of his plan for dealing with Ramsay would make the "treason" charge a much harder sell, later (especially if ,as many of us suspect his real plan is not to march on WF, but to waylay Ramsay en route to CB, as Jon did with Karstark and as per his tactical musings while waiting for Styr to attack) ... and the reaction of the wildlings to Jon's speech has to leave Bowen apprehensive about the numbers of men at the wall. There are probably even more wildlings present at the wall than the 5-1 ratio noted by Jon in the shieldhall.

I think this at least partially explains the now-more-fearful Bowen's tears...

On 12/23/2016 at 3:09 AM, rotting sea cow said:

...<snip>...

Maybe, but I don't think the plot is too sophisticated.  IMHO, the Pink Letter reading was a way to show that Jon was not worth anymore as LC.

I don't think that either. He (Bowen ?) was quite honest with Jon. My take is that he respected Jon but was seriously worry about the direction of the Night Watch. He had knowledge of the plot of course but tried to hold the would-be mutineers and the Pink Letter reading convinced him. Basically, Jon confessed treason.

I think the plot is really quite sophisticated, and I think you give Bowen much more credit than he deserves.

He was never entirely honest with Jon, beginning with the high probability that he never approved of Jon being made Mormont's steward.We can deduce this through his objections to Jon choosing Satin... "... Traditionally the lord commander’s squires are lads of good birth being groomed for command.”

Jon would not have been considered "of good birth" by Bowen. Although a noble bastard, he's a bastard nonetheless, and the status of his mother is unknown. Add to this Bowen's approval of Thorne's deprecating "droll" nicknames for the recruits ("Lord Snow") and the fact that when he returned from the ST, Bowen sided with Thorne and Slynt , removing Jon from duty in spite of Aemon's assessment, knowing that if Slynt was elected, Jon would be executed. If he had been well disposed toward Jon, as acting LC, he could have sided with Aemon and cleared Jon of any suspicion before the election. By acting as he did, he left the door open for Thorne and Slynt, should Slynt be elected.

When Jon was elected ,Bowen rushed to volunteer to continue in his post. I suspect this was partly to preserve his control over Clydas and the ravens.

This is a somewhat foggy situation... We know that Ned and Benjen corresponded and that Aemon and Rhaegar corresponded, and Aemon and the Citadel. Robb wrote telling of Bran's awakening, but was it addressed to Jon or Mormont ? It certainly went to Mormont first. I would think there would be various rules for different situations, depending on how a given man came to be at the wall to begin with, and what position he held.

Letters to family would be one thing, but I'd surely think that communications with the crown in KL would be reserved for the LC and his maester (and generally,the maester would know if a letter had been sent even if the contents were private).

But now we come to Aemon , Clydas and Marsh. Aemon is blind and Clydas is a steward. Mormont (unfortunately) names Marsh as acting LC when he leaves on his ranging... This leaves Marsh in position to demand Clydas send letters without necessarily informing Aemon. When the letter is sent out reporting that Mormont is feared lost beyond the wall (addressed to the five kings) we see it received at Dragonstone and KL ... but at KL, Pycelle says it's the second letter they've received from Bowen as castellan. This means that Bowen wrote to KL very soon after Mormont left, but we don't know what the letter contained.(It may have been no more than an exercise in self agrandisement) In any case, it's not much to blame Clydas for.. Marsh was acting LC.

When Slynt became acting commander in Bowen's absence, he could send whatever letters he wanted. However I can't think that he would have been allowed to send the letter to KL after Jon's election if Marsh had not been in a position to coerce Clydas, with Thorne to back him up.

I say coerce because I can see no reason that Clydas should wish Jon ill. He makes no politically charged, bigoted or superstitious statements. He's not given a last name (so far) so we can't connect him to any great house. He's not shown to be chummy with Bowen or any of the other known or suspected conspirators.

He has reason to be grateful to Jon. Jon made his life easier with Sam's appointment,reducing the amount of reading he had to do and saving him from having to put up with Chett. Like Aemon he must have been aware that Jon's efforts saved CB and so possibly, Clydas' very life. The two seem friendly,and there's an example of the law of hospitalty on a personal level between them when Jon stops by Clydas quarters late at night in ADWD - Clydas offers Jon mulled wine which Jon accepts, drinks and thanks him for... And w

hen Tormund's people come through the wall...

"... Tormund and his people will need to be fed and clothed and housed. Some are sick and will need nursing. Those will fall to you, Clydas. Save as many as you can.”
Clydas blinked his dim pink eyes. “I will do my best, Jon. My lord, I mean.”

This seems to show Clydas thinks of Jon as a friend...he's not just acting a part. I can't see him as one who smiles to Jon's face and sharpens a knife behind his back.

And yet I agree Clydas has read the letter or knows it has been read.

(Of course, I think the letter has not only been read but altered.. by Alliser Thorne, who is the character I think it sounds most like in tone and by the kinds of insults and goading it contains. I think his presence is predicted in Samwell 1, AAfC (a chapter rich in predictions, foreshadowings, and so on, including... Thorne hiding at CB .. the Mad Mouse escapes being crushed.. Val wants Jon (and to have his children).. Jon is probably wearing ringmail under his clothes.. Aemon's death at sea.. the babies might not have been switched .. and maybe more.)

So I think Clydas is under threat and he can't say anything to Jon because Mully is there , who I definitely think is party to the plot.

ETA: Meant to say I see no sign of Bowen holding the conspirators back and the thing about Jon confessing treason is a superficial reading to the passage, IMO.

[Greywater-Watch]

@Lord Varys I address this answer especially to you, as you are a member of this forum with a reputation for good quality in comments and analyses.

But in my view your stubborn insistence on being able to judge characters as being right or wrong in their actions based on a book of law, which could have been edited by Maester Pycelle or someone else close to the Iron Throne, ignores and suppresses the spirit of this discussion if not of the whole novel.

From AGOT to ADWD, GRRM is lead by the spirit of Shakespeare in Macbeth: "Fair is foul and foul is fair". We, the readers, get a glimpse of the ethical and moral background of many decisions the POV characters take, as we often know more about their motives than the other characters in the novel do. But even so, there is practically no decision or action which does not conflict with a law, be it an official one or a rule, guideline, moral compass. Take Ned Stark for example, or the actions of Davos in the perimeter of Stannis and Melisandre.

We are to judge the characters on our own. GRRM helps us for those characters with a POV view, giving us insight into their motives and self-reflection. For sure, there are more positive figures like Ned Stark, Daenerys, Jon, who distinguish themselves from others (e.g. Cersei) by revealing through their thoughts that they are aware of the difficulty to find the right decision, weighing pros and cons but not only on a selfish Basis. In contrast for example to Cersei, who is practically always doing things for her own benefit.

The effort to understand and interprete the Story by superposing on all this a rigid decision matrix made of official law in Westeros (which is insufficient, incomplete and has been bend more than often) is in my opinion fruitless and misleading.

Worse even: Assuming, the characters in the novel would do so, is - in my view - naive and wrong:

Of course Bowen Marsh and Othell Yarwyck also know that clinging to the "official law" does not allow to make black-or-white decisions, nor do I believe they ignore that there is a moral compass each individual in Westeros has to follow.

[Lord Varys]

9 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Yes, it is because of his history with the Starks. I am looking for the main quote, it may have to come much later because I am super busy filling custom orders of stuff and should not be online, but this is the first one I can find right away.

A Storm of Swords - Jon IX

"I don't know what your skull is stuffed with. My lord."

"Lord Snow is nothing if not arrogant," said Ser Alliser. "He murdered Qhorin just as his fellow turncloaks did Lord Mormont. It would not surprise me to learn that it was all part of the same fell plot. Benjen Stark may well have a hand in all this as well. For all we know, he is sitting in Mance Rayder's tent even now. You know these Starks, my lord."

"I do," said Janos Slynt. "I know them too well."

I'd interpret that specific quote more as Thorne trying to suck up to and manipulate Slynt than an expression of his genuine feelings. Thorne's support of Slynt seems to me as a way to become the new guy in charge behind the scenes. Slynt is a new man at the Watch. If he becomes Lord Commander with Thorne's help it is more than likely than not that Thorne is going to be the man in charge because he knows how to work the Watch.

Thorne must know that Slynt was involved in the downfall and execution of Eddard Stark. After all, that was more or less the reason why Tyrion sent him to the Wall, right?

We know from Rykker that he and Thorne were sent to the Wall by Lord Tywin. That doesn't mean that Thorne doesn't also see the Starks as a traitorous lot due to their involvement in the Rebellion. But I doubt he actually blames Ned for being at the Wall when the man had nothing to do with that.

8 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

Dirk and Qarl is named in aSoS prologue as part of the conspiritors. Sweet Donnel was also named and he's the sole named conspiritor of the Fist who did not participate with the mutiny at Craster's. Chett also noted that during Jeor's speech at the Fist about planning to take on Mance's oncoming army, Sweet Donnel fervently shouts along, very convincingly. So, at the Fist, Sweet Donnel already revealed he might be the least interested in executing the original plan. Heck, it's as likely that Sweet Donnel only pretended to be a conspiritor to learn as much as he could.  But Dirk belongs to the original mutineers, those who were to kill.

You are right there. I shouldn't have forgotten that. However, I don't buy your interpretation of Sweet Donnel Hill. I think the man just knows how to smile and fake stuff. He realized that Chett's plan was nonsense after the Fist and subsequently decided not to participate in what transpired at Craster's.

Ollo Lophand is also part of Chett's gang. I've just rechecked the whole thing. Damn, is it easy to forget this thing. The Garth involved in the whole scene at Craster's aren't mentioned by Chett yet they might have been recruited by the surviving conspirators on the way or might have gone unnamed in the Prologue.

8 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

If the parallel holds, then one of the CB mutineers, might have had a change of heart at the time and actually betray the fellow mutineers, like Sweet Donnel had.

But I don't think that parallel holds at all. One thing is people planning murder and desertion, the other is people actually trying to do the best for the Watch.

8 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

Sending a letter to betray your lord commander is treason.

Slynt didn't betray Jon Snow. Jon Snow isn't at war with the Iron Throne, remember? He is commanding the Night's Watch

8 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

Thorne trying to get a man elected for Tywin's pleasure for an IT that has numerous times refused to send any help and laughed at him in his face for the real danger, knowing full well it antagonizes the king-pretender who actually is helping them is a betrayal to his vows. Thorne isn't protecting the realm of men by those actions.

That is just a baseless claim. We don't know whether Stannis or all the Northmen and the wildlings combined stand a chance against the Others. Thus it is ridiculous to assert they should be loyal to Stannis if all the men does is bring them a pitiful host and more strife and civil war in the North. If the man is just prolonging their misery he isn't any help.

And no, neither Lord Tywin nor King Tommen ever laughed in the face of Alliser Thorne or the NW as a whole.

You can't use your knowledge or assumption about what's going to happen and then accuse a character in the books of treason or betrayal because he doesn't know better. That's about in the same league as accusing the Greatjon of treason and Robb of suicide because they proclaimed and crowned him king. They should have known that was hopeless, right?

8 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

Jon procured loans for food to buy. The IT can't stop ships with food being sent from Braavos, nor can they prevent Westeros merchants from going to Braavos.

This is a non-issue because Jon never told his Lord Steward and his other brothers about that deal nor has it been finalized yet. That's dependent on Tycho Nestoris making it back alive from the village, continuing the deal in the wake of Jon's assassination, and of him reaching Braavos alive.

And we should not expect the Free Cities to feed Westeros in the winter that's coming. That one is going to get ugly, and while there might be some surplus food in Braavos and other places we don't really know whether the Watch (or anyone, really) will have the coin to actually buy food when it really gets scarce. A little bit of gold might not be enough to get some food in such a setting.

8 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

Quote? My memory completely fails me on that.

It is discussed in AGoT that Robb and Bran intend to send letters to Jon Snow at the Wall. I don't recall now if they ever do it or whether Jon himself ever writes a letter but one assumes he did after he learned that Bran awakened from his coma.

We also know that Tyrion as Acting Hand can sent letters to Prince Doran through Pycelle without the Queen Regent (or King Joffrey) knowing about that. One assumes that Renly, Littlefinger, Stannis, Selmy, or any other powerful and influential courtier can put a letter in Pycelle's care while at a visit at court and expect him to send such a letter to its destination.

Vice versa, a letter from Dragonstone addressed to Lord Stannis is not going to be opened by Pycelle and handed to King Robert for inspection before it is put in the hands of Lord Stannis.

This is not a totalitarian society.

8 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

Utter total And I further refrain from argumenting with such a nonsensical stance - other than say it's one of the most absurdest things I've ever read on these boards as an argument.

Since you aren't making an argument here I cannot return the compliment. Jon Snow isn't a king, the Night's Watch isn't his personal army, and it isn't treason to communicate with King Tommen, King Euron, or anybody else down in the South unless the Lord Commander has explicitly forbidden that. And if he did that it is not clear whether that would be legal because the NW takes no part in the wars of the Realm, meaning that the NW and its members actually should be allowed to communicate with pretty much anybody and keep no secrets from anybody. Informing the Iron Throne about what's going on isn't treason.

8 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

The author of the Pink Letter claims a lot of stuff, such as a battle that lasted 7 days.

That's a separate issue. We have no way to verify this claim and nobody should take Ramsay at his word if there is no other information. But it is not far-fetched to assume that one of the spearwives or Mance himself got caught and eventually talked after they lost some skin. They were a handful of people against thousands of men-at-arms.

8 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

Roose already pointed out the issue of kinslaying. He doesn't dare to kill Ramsay, because he's of his blood. Barbrey is not actual blood, but she is kin to Roose and thus to Ramsay through the marriage of her sister with Roose. In fact, with people calling Theon a kinslayer because he allegedly had two Stark boys murdered while he grew up with them as hostage-ward, implies that "kinslaying" extends beyond "blood". Hence Barbrey cannot risk ordering one of her men to do it. But if Mance comes up with a plan that includes killing Ramsay, at his own suggestion, then she has Ramsay killed without remotely being regarded a kinslayer.

Even if I were willing to buy Roose's talk to Theon about kinslaying (which I don't because I see little reason to believe that Roose should tell Theon the truth and nothing but the truth) we can't extend Roose's own feelings about kinslaying to Barbrey Dustin. You also wouldn't say Roose's favorite color has to be green if Barbrey's favorite color happened to be green, right?

And your wrong. Barbrey is kin to Domeric Bolton because her sister Bethany is Domeric's mother. But she isn't kin to Roose as far as we know, and thus certainly not kin to Ramsay.

Even if kinslaying extends beyond blood (which it doesn't, not really) Barbrey has no intimate connection to Roose's ill-begotten bastard.

If one thinks a little bit about your idea that Mance of all people would collude with Lady Barbrey on such a ridiculous scenario as murdering Ramsay the entire story of the Winterfell plot in ADwD collapses. Why the hell would Mance work with Theon of all people and not Lady Barbrey herself to get Jeyne out? Why rely on the castrated cripple suffering from Stockholm syndrome? Barbrey had access to Jeyne, and she certainly could have come up with a way to create a much more effective distraction to help them get Jeyne out of the castle.

The very idea that Mance would even dare to approach Lady Barbrey with such a notion is ridiculous. That would be as likely as he asking Roose himself for help. Even if Barbrey were secretly still a Stark loyalist - she certainly doesn't show it and Mance cannot read her mind. He would consider her as much a Bolton friend as Stannis right now considers Lord Wyman a traitor and a Bolton friend.

8 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

Tommen, Stannis and fAegon and Dany are all throne pretenders. Tommen pretends to be a Baratheon, while he isn't. That he does not know this himself doesn't matter. Stannis is Robert's actual heir, but he doesn't have the throne. fAegon and Dany claim to have pretense on the IT on account of their Targ blood, while the actual Targ dynasty was ousted.

Prince Aegon isn't pretending to the Iron Throne. A pretender is person who styles himself king or thinks he is a king. Aegon is still styled Prince Aegon, he has yet to formally lay claim to the Iron Throne. If he does he will be a pretender until he actually holds the throne. And House Targaryen has only lost its claim to the Iron Throne in the eyes of a minority. The smallfolk and many lords still consider them the true royal dynasty and the Baratheons as usurpers.

Dany is a pretender to the Iron Throne since she styles herself Queen of Westeros. Stannis is a pretender to the Iron Throne because he wants to conquer the throne. But Tommen isn't a pretender because he actually holds the throne.

8 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

Dorne does not drink to Tommen, sends Qyburn Quentyn to Mereen to try and make an alliance with Dany and sends Arianne on a mission to verify the truth of fAegon and possible form an alliance with him. The Iron Islands do not recognize Tommen as their king. Instead both Euron and his brother try to make an alliance with Dany. fAegon has "friends in the Reach". The BwB doesn't recognize Tommen and they have the full support and help of the RL smallfolk. Blackfish and Blackwood and Mallister were forced to surrender. Them and others like Vance and Piper are in Jaime's words "still wolifsh at heart". The Vale is led by LF who harbors a fugitive Sansa who's accused of kingslaying. Oh and he's also the supposed LP of the Riverlands. Manderly, the Umbers, Alys Karstark, Glovers, northern Mountain Clans, and Mormonts are pro-Stark and ally with Stannis. Meanwhile the Crownlands with the ward of Rosby and Bronn at Stokeworth begin to sabotage KL.

Where's this so called universal acknowledgment of Tommen as king of the IT? I don't see it. Three and a half of the seven kingdoms are plotting to ally with another of the pretenders (Iron Islands, Dorne and Reach and half of the North). Two have half the houses fighting or helping fighters against the IT (RL and North). One plans to betray and ally with Starks (well Vale for Sansa Stark). And several houses at KL's doorstep are about ready to start a food blockade. The only kingdom where King Tommen is universally acknowledged as king is in the Westerlands, that is exactly one kingdom of the seven

That is all true but still very few people actually openly challenge King Tommen in the field. And as of the end of ASoS - when this is relevant in regards to the actions of the members of the NW - only Stannis does. Aegon is still on the Rhoyne, nobody at the Wall even knows about Daenerys, and King Euron is still sitting at Pyke, not challenging King Tommen as King of Westeros. Only Stannis does that at this point. And his cause is essentially doomed.

8 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

And yet everybody needs to ask Theon where those crypts are. Guess who isn't around anymore to ask.

Come on, use better arguments. Theon showed Lady Barbrey where they are, and then she and her men reopened them. Do you think nobody in the crowded castle of Winterfell saw that happening?

8 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

I didn't say he'd be searching all by himself. I alluded to the spiral stairs allowing only for people to enter one by one.

And why the hell would Ramsay do anything together with Barbrey Dustin? He has expressed his wish to kill her and would easily use such an opportunity to do just that. Besides, why should we assume Roose and Ramsay would personally involve themselves in a search for the co-conspirators rather than the actual price? They need 'Arya' back as quickly as possible because their whole enterprise hinges on her and her claim.

8 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

Where does it say it needs to be activated? That's in Mel's control. The glamor is tied to the bone shirt and the ruby. Don't wear them, and Mance looks like Mance. Wear them and Mance looks like Rattleshirt.

The glamor itself lives in the ruby. The bones help with it but they are not really necessary. The problem is that we don't know if you can put down an activated glamor and I see some difficulty in Abel running around with a glowing ruby in his bags. That's difficult to conceal. 

8 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

Oh but there is. It's the text that suggests those ideas, although I agree that we don't necessarily have that for the Patrek distraction.

The text certainly doesn't suggest your weirdo Mance-Barbrey conspiracy. 

4 hours ago, bemused said:

Bowen has been shown to be something of a dim bulb in the estimation of characters that are themselves presented as anything but (Mormont, Mance and so forth). So we have reason to doubt that he's capable of concocting much of a plot (consider the wisdom of sealing the gates, hoarding the food and hoping for the best - never mind that the wall is dangerously undermanned) .. but we do see that he's relatively easily taken in, if you know what buttons to push.

I don't deny that Marsh isn't necessarily the most imaginative guy at the Wall. But we don't know enough about him to properly assess his intelligence or his capabilities. We don't know him all that well. 

Thorne and Slynt convinced him that their cause is the right cause but back then there was no alternative, wasn't there? Jon Snow wasn't even on the table when they made their plans. And now - who is there to push his buttons? Button-pushing is difficult if you are just communicating through letters. Wick is a fellow steward and presumably a man Marsh trust because he is leading Jon around through the storerooms.

4 hours ago, bemused said:

Bowen lost 100 men at the Bridge of Skulls (chasing the Weeper on the wrong side of the Wall) - that's the better part of the men Mormont left behind. I seriously doubt he could have much of a following among the NW himself, except perhaps among the stewards, since they're under his direct command.

Again, the stewards and builders are by far the strongest orders of the Watch. Even if Marsh had only followers among the stewards that would make him a very powerful person.

4 hours ago, bemused said:

Thorne, on the other hand ,is very clever. Though hated for his vindictiveness and unable to muster much of a following, personally (evidenced by the early withdrawal of his name from the candidates for LC), he's adept at working on the resentments of others, leading them to achieve the results he wants. His manipulation of Slynt is the most obvious example of this, but there may be others somewhat less obvious. I'll come back to them.

I agree there. But I see no reason to believe Marsh needed to be manipulated by Thorne or anybody else, really, to come to the conclusion that Jon had to go.

If Marsh had any buttons to push it would have been Jon by insisting to offer the Weeper to cross the Wall - a man that just recently killed a lot of Watchmen and nearly killed Marsh himself. The latter event remarkable changed the Old Pomegranate. We don't need Thorne or anybody else telling Marsh all that, nor does Marsh need much imagination to realize what's going to happen to the Watch after the Boltons have dealt with Jon Snow and his wildling army.

4 hours ago, bemused said:

 I'm interested to see how this plays out. Yarwick draws Jon's attention to the snow piling up against the wall, but Jon himself thinks of the men in the cells. I'm sure Cregan will feature in some future action, but my bet would be as a separate , complicating factor .. probably not as a part of the assassination plan, proper.

Sure, I don't think Cregan played a role in the assassination. My remark was about the aftermath of the assassination and his role after Marsh and company free him from his cell. Is it possible that he might join the NW and become the new Lord Commander?

4 hours ago, bemused said:

As far as I can see there are four would be assassins that we know of, in the shieldhall - Bowen, Wick, Lew and Alf. I don't think Othell was in on the plan... Yes, he's a follower , but only up to a point. After he changed his mind during the LC choosing, I doubt that he would be included in the plan. The fact that he changed his mind at that time shows that he did give some genuine consideration to what was best for the watch and did not follow the suggestions he was being fed by Bowen and Alliser. We don't hear "treason" pass his lips, and throughout, he partakes of Jon's personal hospitality whole heartedly, while Bowen does not. ... So, I think it would be difficult for four men to successfully "surround" Jon - hiding what was happening from the view of all onlookers.

That is only the case if we assume there were only so few assassins. I doubt that because if Jon could still count on (m)any loyal men in his environment just four assassins would face a rather great risk to fail. Not just because others might intervene but also because Jon Snow was a very capable warrior.

If Jon happened to become surrounded by a crowd of Bowen's men - say, 10-20 men - some of them doing the butchering the others blocking the view, the actual deed could be easily enough be obscured.

4 hours ago, bemused said:

There's no way to spin the attempted assassination as an execution, since none of those present have the authority to order one.They can only hope that their characterization of Jon will be accepted after the fact, and provide their mutiny a degree of excusability.

Yeah, well, it is pretty closely modeled on Caesar's murder, and that one certainly can be seen as an execution of sorts. And one actually assumes that the black brothers are supposed to deal with a treasonous/mad Lord Commander themselves rather than following such a man so the Realm at large has to intervene and wage a war against the Watch.

4 hours ago, bemused said:

I agree that the reading of the pink letter marks a major turning point , but Jon's decision to leave the NW out of his plan for dealing with Ramsay would make the "treason" charge a much harder sell, later (especially if ,as many of us suspect his real plan is not to march on WF, but to waylay Ramsay en route to CB, as Jon did with Karstark and as per his tactical musings while waiting for Styr to attack) ... and the reaction of the wildlings to Jon's speech has to leave Bowen apprehensive about the numbers of men at the wall. There are probably even more wildlings present at the wall than the 5-1 ratio noted by Jon in the shieldhall.

The idea that Jon and an army of undisciplined wildlings could waylay a Bolton army makes no sense to me. Especially not since it is quite clear that neither Jon nor Tormund actually take the Pink Letter at face value. Jon has first to find out what actually happened at Winterfell and for that he has to go there. Vice versa, Roose and Ramsay wouldn't march up to the Wall without sending up scouts and even envoys up to the Wall to check for traps and inquire whether Jon is meeting the demands in the Pink Letter.

4 hours ago, bemused said:

I think this at least partially explains the now-more-fearful Bowen's tears...

I'm more inclined to believe Marsh liked Jon reasonably well and did not want to kill him but felt he had to. Keep in mind that House Marsh is from the North and there is no reason to believe the Marshes don't like the their ultimate overlords, the Starks.

@Greywater-Watch

I'm aware of all that. If I state that this and that is treason, I'm not saying that this doesn't have to be seen in context. I actually understand both Jon's wish to avenge Stannis and save his sister as well as Bowen Marsh's intention to prevent Jon drawing the NW into a war with the Boltons.

If I put myself in Jon's shoes - which I don't do all that often because many people like to do it - then I'd probably have acted more or less as he did. Being Lord Commander gives you both power and a lot of leeway. The law is now in your hands, at least up to a point, and you are now much more tempted to spin it the way you want it. Jon was always very tempted to leave the Wall and help Robb and his other siblings. Now as Lord Commander he doesn't have to choose between desertion and his duty. He has other ways to act and influence events.

I mean, I prefer Stannis to the Lannister regime any day. But it is also evident that following your own petty emotions in all that isn't really a good idea.

Jon being a traitor to the Watch and his vows doesn't necessarily make him a bad person - just as Bowen Marsh killing Jon doesn't have to make him a bad guy, either. Although both Jon and Marsh can be considered to act both rashly and stupidly. Marsh because he might not have a good plan for the aftermath of the assassination, and both because they actually fell for the Pink Letter, at least in part.

And Marsh clearly seems to be a guy who sticks to the law/duty of the NW in a rather rigid way. Fraternizing with the wildlings isn't something a Watchman is supposed to do, period. Not to mention that the legal framework within the NW can operate is pretty narrow. They have to stay at the Wall, they can't interfere with the affairs of the Realm, they are not allowed to take sides, they are just supposed to guard that damned wall.

[Greywater-Watch]

14 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

This is a non-issue because Jon never told his Lord Steward and his other brothers about that deal

I am not so sure about that. I have no textual evidence at hand, I admit. But he visited the stores and he included the collection of all wealth of the Wildlings in his contract with Tormund. Bowen Marsh is in charge of collecting and listing all these goods. I can very well imagine that Jon told Bowen Marsh about why he wanted all goods from the Wildlings.

[sweetsunray]

33 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Slynt didn't betray Jon Snow. Jon Snow isn't at war with the Iron Throne, remember? He is commanding the Night's Watch

Next thing you're gonna say that someone sending intelligence from their country to another they're not at war with, without any authority to do so, isn't treason either *. And in this case it's the worst type of treason - for personal gain and interest. Even if I disagree with the mutineers who assassinated Jon, I can recognize that while in error, Bowen Marsh does believe he's acting in the interest of the NW.

*The Falcon got 40 years for it, and the Snowman life.

Slynt aims to betray Jon Snow. Slynt wants to put Jon Snow in the worst light. Slynt wants help from the Iron Throne to get rid of Jon Snow and solely for his own gain. It's as treasonous as it gets.

[usama]

Damn Varys.........I've never seen such some put this good an effort to support a failed arguement in a long time.

[Lord Varys]

14 minutes ago, Greywater-Watch said:

I am not so sure about that. I have no textual evidence at hand, I admit. But he visited the stores and he included the collection of all wealth of the Wildlings in his contract with Tormund. Bowen Marsh is in charge of collecting and listing all these goods. I can very well imagine that Jon told Bowen Marsh about why he wanted all goods from the Wildlings.

We know he didn't tell his officers after he signed the original contract with Tycho. He certainly could have told them in-between, I admit that, but then it was never referred to on page. Considering that this was a major plot point in the book I'd find that very odd.

Collecting the valuables of the wildlings and charging Marsh with cataloging them all is actually meaningful in itself. Marsh doesn't have to know about the planned loans with the Iron Bank to find it reasonable to collect valuables they could use to buy food in winter. In fact, Marsh should actually be more happy with them collecting gold and other stuff from the wildlings than with the idea that those valuables are nothing but collateral in Jon's dealings with the Iron Bank.

We don't know how many money Jon is loaning from the Iron Band as per the contract but if it is very much then this could still mark the end of the NW. The Iron Bank gets their due, and I doubt the NW can afford to pay back a large sum of money plus interest over decades or even centuries. Not with their numbers being in constant decline.

For Tycho Stannis is the big fish there, and Jon is his buddy. If Stannis ends up dead or if the politics of the Iron Bank changes, the Titan might deal rather harshly with the Watch.

5 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

Next thing you're gonna say that someone sending intelligence from their country to another they're not at war with, without any authority to do so, isn't treason either *. And in this case it's the worst type of treason - for personal gain and interest. Even if I disagree with the mutineers who assassinated Jon, I can recognize that while in error, Bowen Marsh does believe he's acting in the interest of the NW.

*The Falcon got 40 years for it, and the Snowman life.

Apples and oranges. The Night's Watch isn't a different country, so comparing it to a different country makes no sense. The Watch and its members are subjects of the Iron Throne like anybody else in the Seven Kingdoms. Keep in mind how Tyrion threatens the thugs at the Wall by pointing out who his sister, father, and brother-in-law is.

The idea that the Lord Commander of the NW has the right to withhold information from the Iron Throne (or really anybody in the Seven Kingdoms) is just ridiculous. If the NW takes no sides the NW cannot have a secret political agenda of its own. Everything it does has to be transparent.

You know that Walder Frey makes it clear that he has sworn vows to both the King on the Iron Throne and the Lord Tully. A black brother certainly has to be loyal to both his Lord Commander and his king, and it cannot be treason if communicate with the king. Unless, of course, you actually want to tell us that Jon Snow was at war with the Iron Throne early on in ADwD.

Jon Snow advising Stannis on his campaign in the North or warning him about the impending Karstark betrayal is taking sides. He favors one side over the other and can thus no longer demand that the other side doesn't see him as an enemy or traitor.

And the idea to compare the laws of modern developed countries to a medieval feudal monarchy isn't a very good comparison in any case.

[Greywater-Watch]

35 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

For Tycho Stannis is the big fish there, and Jon is his buddy.

Hmmm.... Jon thinks after the negotiations with Tycho, that it went easier than he expected. I have a feeling that Tycho had a deal with the Night Watch on his schedule all the way. And Braavos / the Iron Bank is not so narrow minded as not to value the service the Night Watch also does to them.

[Lord Varys]

Just now, Greywater-Watch said:

Hmmm.... Jon thinks after the negotiations with Tycho, that it went easier than he expected. I have a feeling that Tycho had a deal with the Night Watch on his schedule all the way. And Braavos / the Iron Bank is not so narrow minded as not to value the service the Night Watch also does to them.

Considering that the NW has pretty much nothing to offer to the Iron Bank (which is a bank, not the government of Braavos) while the Iron Bank has little to gain from a contract with the NW I find that hard to believe.

Tycho was sent to Stannis, and if Stannis had been in Dorne, Pentos, or Lys they would have gone there, not to the Wall.

[rotting sea cow]

6 hours ago, bemused said:

Clydas blinked his dim pink eyes. “I will do my best, Jon. My lord, I mean.”

 

This seems to show Clydas thinks of Jon as a friend...he's not just acting a part. I can't see him as one who smiles to Jon's face and sharpens a knife behind his back.

 

And yet I agree Clydas has read the letter or knows it has been read.

(Of course, I think the letter has not only been read but altered.. by Alliser Thorne, who is the character I think it sounds most like in tone and by the kinds of insults and goading it contains. I think his presence is predicted in Samwell 1, AAfC (a chapter rich in predictions, foreshadowings, and so on, including... Thorne hiding at CB .. the Mad Mouse escapes being crushed.. Val wants Jon (and to have his children).. Jon is probably wearing ringmail under his clothes.. Aemon's death at sea.. the babies might not have been switched .. and maybe more.)

So I think Clydas is under threat and he can't say anything to Jon because Mully is there , who I definitely think is party to the plot.

ETA: Meant to say I see no sign of Bowen holding the conspirators back and the thing about Jon confessing treason is a superficial reading to the passage, IMO.

The warning of the "smiling conspirators" comes from Mel, we need to look among them to find who they are. Clydas is a suspect because holds a key role and as you pointed out he already sent important letters without LC approval. If he is under threat, why doesn't he go to Jon and to denounce them?

As I said, I'm certain that Clydas read the letter and strongly suspect that it was edited. I agree what you said about Alliser, who might be hiding.  And indeed, there was a lot going on at CB at that time. 

My suspicion about Marsh having tried to hold the mutiny is based on:

1) He is honest with Jon about his disappointment regarding decisions concerning  the NW.

2) Mel mentions that the 'smiling ones'  are the danger

3) Best timing for a mutiny is between Stannis leaves and Wildings come. Doing after the later passed the Wall is a huge risk. Pretty certain that CB is a big mess right now.

4) Marsh does the deed himself, in tears!

5) The Pink Letter reading is beyond a blunder. Jon is confessing interfering in the realm using enemies of the realm (wildings) for personal goals and he is confessing that the NW did not only help a rebel, but worse the losing side and he is confessing using sorcery. Any member of the NW would have understood that at face value, the facts contained in the letter gives grounds to the warden of the North to intervene the NW.

Notice, I never said that Marsh is innocent. He must have known about the plotting and didn't inform the LC. But he was unconvinced that Jon was truly a traitor until the Pink letter reading.

 

 

 

 

[rotting sea cow]

22 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Considering that the NW has pretty much nothing to offer to the Iron Bank (which is a bank, not the government of Braavos) while the Iron Bank has little to gain from a contract with the NW I find that hard to believe.

Tycho was sent to Stannis, and if Stannis had been in Dorne, Pentos, or Lys they would have gone there, not to the Wall.

Pretty certain that NW debts were attached to the money lend to Stannis. Probably it is not too much anyway. The question about the Iron Bank going big time with Stannis is worth another thread. There is probably more than money involved.