Theories on the assassination of Jon Snow at CB

[aryagonnakill#2]

47 minutes ago, Greywater-Watch said:

This is in fact my greatest worries when thinking in the direction of an extensive planning and even including the Pink Letter in the plot. Who at CB would have the wits for such a ploy worthy of the mind of a Littlefinger? Except for Melisandre (having in my view no motive) there are very few. Therefore I thought, Selyse and one or the other of her knights might have a finger in this, but I admit this is a very stretched assumption. To me, Marsh and Yarwyck do not have the Brains for that; maybe Clydas is underestimated.

No way Selyse has the brains.  Not to mention the fact that Selyse thinks she is about to win with Jon.  Everyone in Selyse camp at the wall right now thinks Jon is about to leave to hardhome and that Val is being married to Ser Patrek. Besides that, whatever disagreements Selyse has had with Jon, she cannot be completely blind to the fact that he has been friendly to her husbands cause.  Her camp has no motive whatsoever for doing this, and will not be happy it was done.

[Clegane'sPup]

23 hours ago, rotting sea cow said:

4) I'm convinced that Clydas read the Pink Letter before handling it to Jon. I wanted to write a post about it, but cannot find the time.

I agree. I that would be an interesting topic. As you reminded me Clydas is not a Maester, he is a steward. If push came to shove which boss would he follow, Lord Commander or Lord Steward? I still don't think Marsh is the mastermind. He definitely does seem to be rather disgusted with LC Snow's decisions.

[Clegane'sPup]

1 hour ago, Greywater-Watch said:

This is in fact my greatest worries when thinking in the direction of an extensive planning and even including the Pink Letter in the plot.

I have tried and tried to come up with some explanation between the assassination attempt and the letter.The only thing that satisfies me is the letter was tampered with and that Thorne is involved someway.

I have been searching for an old thread which may have been archived when the board was revamped. I'll PM a poster and if she's still active maybe she can supply the link.

[The Lord of the Crossing]

It's an execution, not an assassination.  Jon was guilty of treason.  He was about to lead a Wildling raiding party to attack the warden of the north and the people they were supposed to be protecting.  Bowen Marsh was within his rights to execute his batshit crazy lord commander before he can compound the damage he had already done.  Jon was 100% wrong to send the wildlings to rescue Arya.  Raiding the Boltons would have been even worse. 

[Clegane'sPup]

13 minutes ago, Lame Lothar Frey said:

It's an execution, not an assassination. 

Could meet somewhere in the middle and call it a mutiny?.

[The Lord of the Crossing]

1 minute ago, Clegane'sPup said:

Could meet somewhere in the middle and call it a mutiny?.

Can we agree that Jon was completely wrong for trying to meddle with the ruling house of the north just to rescue fake Arya and that Jon is unfit to rule?  Jon is unfit to command and even less fit to rule.

[Clegane'sPup]

1 minute ago, Lame Lothar Frey said:

Can we agree that Jon was completely wrong for trying to meddle with the ruling house of the north just to rescue fake Arya and that Jon is unfit to rule?  Jon is unfit to command and even less fit to rule.

Weeeeeeel, I agree that LC Jonboy made some mistakes. Thing that trips me up is that trisky Mance was suppose to get the girl riding near Long Lake. Instead Mance ended up at WF and I've not figured out how he knew to go there.

[kissdbyfire]

11 hours ago, 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.

Better weapons or more weapons or even both will mean fuck all if the fight is 400 NW men (and that's not even realistic b/c not all black brothers will side with Marsh and there's not that many there now) against many, many more wildlings, and I don't even mean all 3,119 that came through the Wall with Tormund. 

Quote

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.

Marsh will spin an assassination attempt, with Jon's body punched full of holes and bleeding there in the snow, and men, including wildlings, arriving from all the nearby buildings? Good luck with that. 

And I don't understand the bold... You say the wildlings are "no united power bloc", and then you say "they might begin to think for themselves". To me those two statements contradict each other. 

Quote

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

Again, good luck with that. Because I honestly don't see how Marsh, in any situation could possibly motivate the wildlings into... well, anything, really. 

Quote

In addition, there is the fact that the Shadow Tower and Eastwatch also still exist. If the wildlings basically butchered a lot of Watchmen at Castle Black then we would have a war at the Wall, with Hewett and Mallister eventually attacking Castle Black. They cannot allow the wildlings to control one of the gates through the Wall.

Hmmm yeah. Only they'll have to go through all the other castles manned by... wait for it... wildlings! I'm only partly joking here. But the point remains, yes, Mallister and Hewett would likely take action upon hearing about the wildlings attacking the NW men. Only by the time they get there, if they do get there, it will be kinda late. 

Quote

That doesn't make any sense to me. First Men blood is never introduced to be special in and of itself. There might be magical blood lines among some First Men lineages but not in all of them collectively. And I don't see any reason why this should matter in relation to the Others.

Well, we know the Wall stands as long as the NW "stays true", and the NW hasn't been true in a good long while. And the original NW, the truest NW, if you will, was made up of 100% pure FM blood.

Quote

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.

Yes, I think it will be a combination of several things that will allow the WW through but ultimately the NW will play a part in the fight against them, but it will be a radically different NW than the one we have now.

ETA: the strike through went loco! 

[rotting sea cow]

13 hours ago, Clegane'sPup said:

I agree. I that would be an interesting topic. As you reminded me Clydas is not a Maester, he is a steward. If push came to shove which boss would he follow, Lord Commander or Lord Steward? I still don't think Marsh is the mastermind. He definitely does seem to be rather disgusted with LC Snow's decisions.

Thanks, I'll read asap

15 hours ago, Greywater-Watch said:

I had that in mind too, but then I realized that if I followed this road down, Tormund might possibly wait at the end, so I kept my feet off that track...

I don't think we need to look that far ;-) But he may also have a different agenda.

15 hours ago, Greywater-Watch said:

This is in fact my greatest worries when thinking in the direction of an extensive planning and even including the Pink Letter in the plot. Who at CB would have the wits for such a ploy worthy of the mind of a Littlefinger? Except for Melisandre (having in my view no motive) there are very few. Therefore I thought, Selyse and one or the other of her knights might have a finger in this, but I admit this is a very stretched assumption. To me, Marsh and Yarwyck do not have the Brains for that; maybe Clydas is underestimated.

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.

13 hours ago, Clegane'sPup said:

I agree. I that would be an interesting topic. As you reminded me Clydas is not a Maester, he is a steward. If push came to shove which boss would he follow, Lord Commander or Lord Steward? I still don't think Marsh is the mastermind. He definitely does seem to be rather disgusted with LC Snow's decisions.

I don't think that either. He 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.

 

 

 

[Greywater-Watch]

11 hours ago, Lame Lothar Frey said:

Can we agree that Jon was completely wrong for trying to meddle with the ruling house of the north just to rescue fake Arya and that Jon is unfit to rule?  Jon is unfit to command and even less fit to rule.

I cannot agree. Let me reply to your accusations in detail.

"Jon is unfit to command and even less fit to rule."

I say, on the contrary: Jon is very fit to command and to rule. I will not even consider the fact that he grows from a boy without any commanding experience in a very short time into an able commander.

• He is stern and practically immune towards the temptation to make decisions just to please his men.
  • You can find such a behaviour pattern with the other capable leaders we have met in ASOIAF (LC Mormond, Tywin Lannister, Stannis Baratheon).
• In order to diminish the risk of such an influence, he even sends his friends away to other castles
  • of course also in order to avoid situations which might give him the reputation to favour his friends.
  • This can be seen as a mistake as Jon underestimated the value of keeping loyal friends close. Maybe he was afraid to be tempted by being too much influenced by friends, so he wished to eliminate this risk, underestimating the disadvantages of this measure.
  • Tywin Lannister, LC Mormond and especially Stannis are practically immune to such influences (Stannis probably most of all), so they did not have to put distance between themselves and their friends.
• The quality of his decisions up to now (before the last chapter) is high.
  • Every Wildling South of the Wall is a possible ally, any Wildling North of the Wall will be another ally of The Others sooner or later.
  • He deals with the Wildlings respectfully, thus winning parts of them even to serve in the Night Watch
  • He separates the Spearwomen from men by giving them a Castle of their own
  • Using Val as a negotiator to bring Tormund and his Wildlings to come South of the Wall is very clever.
  • The contract Jon made with Tormund is of high quality (hostages, collecting the wealth of the Wildings)
  • The Wall is too long to be guarded from three castles only, so all the empty castles must be manned.
  • Jon always tries to be well informed, e.g. for the society of the Wildlings (their traditions, their structure: who likes whom?) and uses this kind of information wherever possible
  • He has a good plan to solve the problem of required food (see his negotiations with the Iron Bank)
  • The Oldtown plan:
    • switch of the babies (Gilly's son with Mance Rayder's son),
    • sending the Baby and Maester Aemon away (both to protect them from Melisandre) 
    • building up Sam as future Maester in Oldtown

is a very cunning plan. As far as we can judge it was 50% successful until now (Maester Aemon died, the singer Daeron deserted; but Sam, Gilly and Mance Rayder's baby arrived safely in Oldtown).

• In many cases Jon shows a very good knowledge of men and characters and successfully integrates them (Val, Leathers)
• The difficulty of implementing these decisions is extremely high because of the depp rooted hatred between the Night Watch (especially some of their officers) and the Wildlings. However until now, Jon succeeded in the realization of all of them.

To summarize: He is - in my opinion - an excellent commander, He has an extremely difficult situation to rule (as he takes visionary decisions breaking with long traditions). His only weakness I see in his rule is (as menentioned above) that he sends his friends away to avoid being (seen as)  influenced by them, thus weakening his own security.

No to your second accusation:

"Jon was completely wrong for trying to meddle with the ruling house of the north just to rescue fake Arya"

There are in fact two points in your accusation:

1. Jon meddles with affairs of the realm
2. His only motivation was to rescue fake Arya

Let us start with the first one:

The official deal is, that neither the Night Watch meddles with affairs of the realm, nor that the realm meddles with affairs of the Night Watch. We know that this is not true in many cases.

• The Lannisters tried to implement a commander of their liking (Janos Slynt).
• Even if the Night Watch asked Stannis for his aid, the role Stannis took after his successful battle with the Wildings is at least borderline to what he is allowed to:
  • (see his influence on the procedure of the election of a new LC;
  • his effort to gain a man of the Night Watch for his plans (trying to "hire" Jon as Lord of Winterfell)
  • the activities of Queen Selyse (naming a King of the Wildlings, arranging marriages, opposing decisions made by the LC)
• is it treason to provide shelter and food for the army of Stannis who saved the Night Watch?
• How do we judge the arrest of Cregan Karstark by Jon? Does that already count as "meddling with affairs of the realm" or just protecting a guest under his roof (Alys Karstark)?
• Is it already treason to agree to sending a Wildling (Mance Rayder) to save a fArya? One could argue that Melisandre send someone on a mission who was not bound to the vows of the Night Watch.
• When declaring that he would go to Winterfell, Jon argues that he wanted to answer a personal threat to himself by Ramsay Bolton in the Pink Letter. Is it forbidden to answer such a threat? Does that count as "meddling with the affairs of the realm"?
• providing scouts for the Iron Banker to find Stannis, is that treason?
• sending a raven to inform Stannis of the treason that Arnolf Karstark has planned: is that treason or does the LC of the Night Watch owe this to a King who has rescued the Night Watch?

To summarize: I think it is not like black and White to decide when the Night Watch meddles with the affairs of the realm or not. In fact, it is not possible to act as if the Night Watch was completely separated from the world outside (i.e. the realm). An interaction is inevitable.

Now to your second accusation that Jon's motivation was solely to save his sister Arya:

• In the Pink Letter Ramsay Bolton threatens Jon, Queens Selyse, her daughter, Melisandre, Val, Mance Rayder's daughter
  • is Jon not obliged to protect guests under his roof?
  • does Jon not have the right to defend himself when threatened?

To summarize: It is an assumption to say Jon's only motivation was to save Arya, there are other motivations too.

[a black swan]

12 minutes ago, Greywater-Watch said:

Now to your second accusation that Jon's motivation was solely to save his sister Arya:

• In the Pink Letter Ramsay Bolton threatens Jon, Queens Selyse, her daughter, Melisandre, Val, Mance Rayder's daughter
  • is Jon not obliged to protect guests under his roof?
  • does Jon not have the right to defend himself when threatened?

To summarize: It is an assumption to say Jon's only motivation was to save Arya, there are other motivations too.

But it's only a threat at that point - Taunting him to engage in battle. Previous to that, his "covert" actions in trying to rescue Arya created more problems. Ramsay wants "his bride back" x3, his threats are born from Jon trying to get Arya back. 

It's not the only factor, but it's a huge one. 

[Greywater-Watch]

13 minutes ago, DutchArya said:

But it's only a threat at that point

As far as I remember, threats in ASOIAF are not to be taken lightly. It is not like in the Wild West, where only your opponent drawing a gun first, gave you the right to kill him. In ASOIAF even a threat could be justification enough to get killed.

[Lord Varys]

10 hours ago, Greywater-Watch said:

As far as I remember, threats in ASOIAF are not to be taken lightly. It is not like in the Wild West, where only your opponent drawing a gun first, gave you the right to kill him. In ASOIAF even a threat could be justification enough to get killed.

We have to keep in mind that Jon's right to grant guest right to traitors should be, well, rather limited if Stannis was actually dead. The Iron Throne and its representatives have any right to demand that Selyse, Shireen, and Melisandre are handed over to them to face whatever punishment King Tommen has in mind for their treason.

Jon Snow insisting that Stannis' wife, child, and lover are his 'guests' is pretty close to treason, too.

The only other precedent I know where a 'traitor' was harbored as a 'guest' by a powerful man was when Prince Aegon and his sister-wife Rhaena were granted sanctuary at Casterly Rock after Maegor the Cruel had seized the Iron Throne. Yet Aegon and Rhaena weren't traitors by default and Prince Aegon - who was his father's eldest son and chosen heir - only challenged Maegor's claim to the Iron Throne a year later. While Aegon and Rhaena were just at Casterly Rock, doing nothing, they weren't actually traitors.

But in the case of Selyse, Mel, and Shireen things are very different. They are the inner circle of a traitor and outlaw who fought a campaign against the Iron Throne for over a year. They are basically criminals. And Jon effectively is a criminal, too, if he harbors them against the wishes of the king.

In addition, there is the problem that Jon actually sent Mance (a former watchman, turncloak, and notorious raider) to Winterfell to abduct Lady Arya Stark Bolton from her home and the protection and guidance of her lord husband. Roose and Ramsay have every reason to believe Mance acted on Jon's command and thus it is quite clear that Jon first interfered with their affairs, not the other way around.

And the NW is not above the law of the king. It continues to exist because the Iron Throne honors it as an institution and supports it by sending men and provisions to the Wall. The Watch is dependent on the Iron Throne, not the other way around. And thus it is essentially suicide for the Watch to support a pretender that is fighting against the Iron Throne and has pretty much no chance to win nor is it a particularly good idea to mess around with the major representative of the Crown in the North.

Ramsay is actually pretty merciful in his letter to Jon. He doesn't declare his life forfeit. He demands his wife back and also that Jon hands over Stannis' wife, lover, and daughter. In exchange he promises not to attack the NW. That is a pretty good deal considering that Jon actually supported Stannis and helped him win his war against the Boltons (for instance, he informed Stannis about the planned Karstark betrayal).

[velo-knight]

18 hours ago, Greywater-Watch said:

I cannot agree. Let me reply to your accusations in detail.

"Jon is unfit to command and even less fit to rule."

I say, on the contrary: Jon is very fit to command and to rule. I will not even consider the fact that he grows from a boy without any commanding experience in a very short time into an able commander.

<snip>

Thank you for posting this. Honestly, I feel a desire to post something like this every time I see a Jon, Robb, or Dany hatethread - one of the core themes of ASoIaF is that politics is very hard. We get a lot secong-guessing from readers who are partway through a story, right when ruthless and cynical antagonists should be approaching their narrative peak. We are also beginning to see not just the moral, but the social and ultimately narrative consequences of the anti-social tactics these villains employ, and one of the ways that ASoIaF is tragic is that doing so is weakening Westeros right before the hour of greatest need for strong institutions. Jon, Robb and Dany can be good leaders and still screw up, and good leaders can still lose.

Quote

No to your second accusation:

"Jon was completely wrong for trying to meddle with the ruling house of the north just to rescue fake Arya"

I think the real issue here is the fuzzy definition of meddling. It's clear that being on the Wall is no excuse for not honoring Guest Right - after all, the Rat Cook was from the Nightfort, presumably a sworn brother or even a LC, given that the Nightfort was once the seat of the Watch - and you don't hear a chorus of people condemning Yoren for rescuing 'Arry' despite knowing the Lannisters might value her as a hostage. It's clear that Marsh and the NW conservatives view Jon's actions as over the line: but are they over the line in and of themselves, or merely the final straw to people who view bringing the wildlings over as treason and now believe they're going to be approached by an angry army from the South?

Another issue: what happens if the politics of the realm meddle with the Watch? Obviously, that's what Stannis did by arriving in the midst of a civil war, and that's what Bolton was doing, too. To what degree can the Watch defend itself, and - by another token - who polices those policing the Watch? They are given their lands to forage and raise taxes by Brandon and then Alysanne - presumably they don't have to write Winterfell or King's Landing every time they want to enforce the law on their land, or accept every claim any southern lord makes against them regardless of merit. This is a bit of a straw man, but I never see the advocates for a totally passive Watch acknowledge or define these limits, and the inherent ambiguity they might present to loyal members of the Watch.

6 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

We have to keep in mind that Jon's right to grant guest right to traitors should be, well, rather limited if Stannis was actually dead. The Iron Throne and its representatives have any right to demand that Selyse, Shireen, and Melisandre are handed over to them to face whatever punishment King Tommen has in mind for their treason.

Jon Snow insisting that Stannis' wife, child, and lover are his 'guests' is pretty close to treason, too.

The only other precedent I know where a 'traitor' was harbored as a 'guest' by a powerful man was when Prince Aegon and his sister-wife Rhaena were granted sanctuary at Casterly Rock after Maegor the Cruel had seized the Iron Throne. Yet Aegon and Rhaena weren't traitors by default and Prince Aegon - who was his father's eldest son and chosen heir - only challenged Maegor's claim to the Iron Throne a year later. While Aegon and Rhaena were just at Casterly Rock, doing nothing, they weren't actually traitors.

But in the case of Selyse, Mel, and Shireen things are very different. They are the inner circle of a traitor and outlaw who fought a campaign against the Iron Throne for over a year. They are basically criminals. And Jon effectively is a criminal, too, if he harbors them against the wishes of the king.

In addition, there is the problem that Jon actually sent Mance (a former watchman, turncloak, and notorious raider) to Winterfell to abduct Lady Arya Stark Bolton from her home and the protection and guidance of her lord husband. Roose and Ramsay have every reason to believe Mance acted on Jon's command and thus it is quite clear that Jon first interfered with their affairs, not the other way around.

All true, and Jon's definitely standing on very thin ice at best here.

Quote

And the NW is not above the law of the king. It continues to exist because the Iron Throne honors it as an institution and supports it by sending men and provisions to the Wall. The Watch is dependent on the Iron Throne, not the other way around. And thus it is essentially suicide for the Watch to support a pretender that is fighting against the Iron Throne and has pretty much no chance to win nor is it a particularly good idea to mess around with the major representative of the Crown in the North.

This is where I wind up feeling for Jon, though. There was no clear leadership of the Watch when he arrived - nobody to say "Thanks for the help, now go away before we get dragged into your civil war". By the time Jon is elected, Stannis is already ensconced, and the Night's Watch can't get rid of them even if they wanted to. Frankly, if they tried via force, there'd be some who viewed that as treason, too - Stannis is a claimant to the Iron Throne, and if the story he tells is true, the rightful one. How is it not interfering to prefer some other candidate, just because their current strength is greater? The Night's Watch are not Freys. I'm not excusing Jon, here - I just think that when we evaluate his command, we should acknowledge that he was dealt a very dicey situation from the get-go.

[Lord Varys]

On 24.12.2016 at 6:56 AM, velo-knight said:

I think the real issue here is the fuzzy definition of meddling. It's clear that being on the Wall is no excuse for not honoring Guest Right - after all, the Rat Cook was from the Nightfort, presumably a sworn brother or even a LC, given that the Nightfort was once the seat of the Watch - and you don't hear a chorus of people condemning Yoren for rescuing 'Arry' despite knowing the Lannisters might value her as a hostage. It's clear that Marsh and the NW conservatives view Jon's actions as over the line: but are they over the line in and of themselves, or merely the final straw to people who view bringing the wildlings over as treason and now believe they're going to be approached by an angry army from the South?

Since we know that Jon was only killed after the Pink Letter was publicly read we can be reasonably sure that Marsh either felt he could now kill Jon without fearing Stannis' revenge or that he felt he had to move now before Jon would draw them all into a war in the South they could not possibly win. Even if Jon happened to win against the Boltons against all odds he could never hope to defeat or even defy the Iron Throne.

Jon himself might have changed Marsh's view on all that had he told him about the agreement he had reached with the Iron Bank. But he didn't.

On 24.12.2016 at 6:56 AM, velo-knight said:

Another issue: what happens if the politics of the realm meddle with the Watch? Obviously, that's what Stannis did by arriving in the midst of a civil war, and that's what Bolton was doing, too. To what degree can the Watch defend itself, and - by another token - who polices those policing the Watch? They are given their lands to forage and raise taxes by Brandon and then Alysanne - presumably they don't have to write Winterfell or King's Landing every time they want to enforce the law on their land, or accept every claim any southern lord makes against them regardless of merit. This is a bit of a straw man, but I never see the advocates for a totally passive Watch acknowledge or define these limits, and the inherent ambiguity they might present to loyal members of the Watch.

The Watch is subject to the rule of the Iron Throne. We know as much. There is even a King's Tower at Castle Black to honor him. However, the NW is much more independent than any lord due their long tradition, their famed neutrality, and the fact that very few lords or kings care about them all that much.

But they have no right to leave their lands nor have they any right to interfere with the affairs of the Realm while visiting the Realm as wandering crows. That is very much emphasized whenever any of those things come up. The best evidence for that is the fact that the castles at the Wall aren't fortified to withstand an attack from the south.

When Stannis came to help the Watch when Tommen and no other king or lord came they certainly were justified in clothing and housing Stannis and his men at the Wall. They could even continue work with him defending the Wall against the wildlings and the Others. But assisting him in any way in his conquest of the North is clearly interfering with the affairs of the Realm.

Jon didn't have to throw Stannis out or demand that he leave the Wall. But he certainly shouldn't have advised him how to conquer the North nor should he have sent Mance Rayder of all people to save his sister from Ramsay.

[Clegane'sPup]

4 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Since we know that Jon was only killed after the Pink Letter was publicly read we can be reasonably sure that Marsh either felt he could now kill Jon without fearing Stannis' revenge or that he felt he had to move now before Jon would draw them all into a war in the South they could not possibly win.

I enjoy reading your retorts. Interesting stuff.

Marsh definitely seems disgusted with LC Snow's decisions. I just don't see Marsh as the mind behind the mutiny.

[Lord Varys]

3 minutes ago, Clegane'sPup said:

I enjoy reading your retorts. Interesting stuff.

Marsh definitely seems disgusted with LC Snow's decisions. I just don't see Marsh as the mind behind the mutiny.

Well, I remember you (?) stressing the fact that people smiling at Jon are the ones who plot against him. Yet who fits that category? The people we think are Jon's friends and allies simply aren't there. Dywen, Iron Emmett, Edd, Pyp, Grenn, etc. aren't even in Castle Black.

And the idea that the Lord Steward of the Watch can be pushed into a certain via raven or messengers just doesn't make much sense to me. Alliser Thorne never smiles at Jon, nor does he have a strong power base of his own (due to being a jerk).

Marsh commands the stewards - with the builders right now most definitely the most powerful faction among the Watch. The builders are likely to be less numerous because they would fill their ranks with the more talented/educated recruits. Not to mention that Yarwyck is clearly not a leader. He is a follower.

And Marsh himself also never seemed to be ambitious enough to try to become Lord Commander himself. He just tried to keep things together and protect the Watch as he sees it.

It is Mel's interpretation that the men smiling at Jon are the danger. And back when she first saw those skulls those men might actually have smiled at Jon. After all, Marsh and company only grew more and more disillusioned with Jon's decisions over time. They didn't plan to assassinate him from the start.

In addition, even if Marsh is no longer smiling in the end he is clearly very different from the men who actually publicly accuse Jon of being a turncloak and traitor early on or the men who essentially hate Jon since AGoT.

[Clegane'sPup]

7 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, I remember you (?) stressing the fact that people smiling at Jon are the ones who plot against him. Yet who fits that category? The people we think are Jon's friends and allies simply aren't there. Dywen, Iron Emmett, Edd, Pyp, Grenn, etc. aren't even in Castle Black.

And the idea that the Lord Steward of the Watch can be pushed into a certain via raven or messengers just doesn't make much sense to me. Alliser Thorne never smiles at Jon, nor does he have a strong power base of his own (due to being a jerk).

Marsh commands the stewards - with the builders right now most definitely the most powerful faction among the Watch. The builders are likely to be less numerous because they would fill their ranks with the more talented/educated recruits. Not to mention that Yarwyck is clearly not a leader. He is a follower.

And Marsh himself also never seemed to be ambitious enough to try to become Lord Commander himself. He just tried to keep things together and protect the Watch as he sees it.

It is Mel's interpretation that the men smiling at Jon are the danger. And back when she first saw those skulls those men might actually have smiled at Jon. After all, Marsh and company only grew more and more disillusioned with Jon's decisions over time. They didn't plan to assassinate him from the start.

In addition, even if Marsh is no longer smiling in the end he is clearly very different from the men who actually publicly accuse Jon of being a turncloak and traitor early on or the men who essentially hate Jon since AGoT.

Damn, I give someone a compliment. Then it is insinuated that I made a statement I did not make. Ouch. I still don't think Marsh is the brains behind the mutiny.

[Lord Varys]

3 minutes ago, Clegane'sPup said:

Damn, I give someone a compliment. Then it is insinuated that I made a statement I did not make. Ouch. I still don't think Marsh is the brains behind the mutiny.

Sorry, that was also supposed to be a compliment because I find the discussion whether other people might be behind the assassination not uninteresting.

[Greywater-Watch]

On ‎24‎.‎12‎.‎2016 at 0:31 AM, Lord Varys said:

The only other precedent I know where a 'traitor' was harbored as a 'guest' by a powerful man was when Prince Aegon and his sister-wife Rhaena were granted sanctuary at Casterly Rock after Maegor the Cruel had seized the Iron Throne.

What about Borros Baratheon receiving at the same time Prince Aemond Targaryen and Prince Lucerys Velaryon at Storm's End at the beginning of the Dance of the Dragons, granting guest rights to both of them?