Bowen Marsh was right to remove Jon from office.

[teej6]

28 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

Before he was king, Baelor sent him to Braavos in 161 AC so he'd leave Naerys the hell alone (who was nearly dead from failed delivery). It's not stated how long that diolomatic mission was supposed to last, but we have no acknowledged pregnancies or deliveries of Naerys anymore until 172 AC (when Aegon IV was king). Meanwhile Aegon met Bellegere Oterys (Black Pearl) in Braavos and had an affair with her for ten year (from 161 AC until 171 AC), and had 3 children of doubtful paternity in those years. Despite the fact that Aegon had at one time one mistress shacked up in KL (from 155 AC-159 AC) + personal Dornish hostage shacked up in his room (from 158 AC-161 AC) + getting Naerys preggers (in 161 AC), suddenly from 161 AC until 170 AC he only has one woman apparently he's with. Then in 170 AC Daena gives birth to Aegon's son Daemon (towards the end of 170 AC), but she doesn't disclose the father.

It sounds to me that Aegon was sent on officious exile indefnitely, and was not recalled back to KL, nor was he supposed to be in KL imo in 170 AC. He likely was in KL in 170 incognito, and persona non grata at Baelor's court. Baelor dies, and Viserys is king for a year. Not even Viserys seems to have recalled his son back. Then Viserys dies of "sudden illness" (quite suspiciously). Well with Aegon very likely in Braavos we can surmise that he paid for tears of lys to be used. 

Whether he was officially allowed at court from 170 AC is debatable, but there's complete absence of Aegon being in Westeros between 161 AC and 170 AC. 9 years officious exile to Braavos in other words, partially so he wouldn't end up killing Naerys for insisting to do her wifely duty to him.

So, yeah, fully agree. Plenty of men care about women not being abuse. Just because there are some sickoes in Westeros in position of power who think they can get away with anything, that does not mean that's either acceptable or even lawful.

Exactly! Aegon's aberrant behavior cannot be assumed  to be the norm or even acceptable in Westeros.

[kissdbyfire]

27 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

I agree with that. After all, it was Jon who convinced Stannis to spare Mance's life in the first place. What was moronic in the extreme was to allow Mance to go down south, though. Mance was teaching Jon valuable lessons at the Wall, both in the practice yard and behind closed doors. He would have been invaluable in actually reaching an understanding with the wildlings as well as in making plans against the Others. Instead, he may sits in a cage in Winterfell right now, very likely not to survive Bolton hospitality.

I don't think it was moronic. I think Jon rolled the dice. And while it may very well be true that Mance is in that cage, we don't really know either way at this point. 

27 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

In what way do Jon and Dany change the feudal nature of the society of the Seven Kingdoms? In what way do they change the patriarchal structure of the society? A woman running things doesn't mean a society isn't misogynistic. If that was the case then the British women would have thrived under Queen Victoria.

 I didn't say anything about bringing down feudalism in one fell swoop, did I? Change is hard, difficult, dangerous. But both Jon and Dany are indeed bringing much needed change, and hopefully these changes will be only the start. 

Again, where did I say if a woman is running things it means that society isn't misogynistic? 

As to Queen Victoria, it could be argued that women did thrive, since that's when the Women's suffrage movement started in the UK. 

27 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

My point is that he thinks of Arya as a little girl who is most likely getting herself into more trouble by being stubborn and determined. He wants to save her as much from herself as he wants to save her from Ramsay. His view of the real Arya as we know her now is very incomplete, and I doubt he or any other character will ever figure out what exactly Arya Stark has become because female assassins - or perhaps even female serial killers - aren't exactly concepts the people of Westeros can wrap their heads around.

But thinking about Arya as a little girl who needs protection, even from herself as you say, doesn't mean that's a misogynistic view. And of course his view of Arya is very incomplete,  he's thinking of Arya as she was when he last saw her. 

[Texas Hold Em]

3 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

True. But Jon decided against executing Mance. And think he was right, I think it was the right decision, even if going against the NW rules and traditions. 

 

 

 

The problem with that decision is because it is more than NW rules and traditions.  Even Jon admitted (to himself) that Mance deserved an execution.  Mance Rayder is easily the biggest enemy of the kingdom.  The man was a ranger and a sworn brother of the watch.  We know from Qhorin that Mance always had trouble following orders ("Like me", according to Jon) and he loved the women.  He betrayed his brothers for a piece of red cloth.  He breached the wall and entered the kingdom that he betrayed, which is trespassing.  He led the wildlings to attack the gates at Castle Black.  You bet the man is a criminal.  The decision was wrong because as many posters have already said, Jon executed a man for a much lesser crime.  Jon allowed personal feelings to drive his actions and that made him unfit for command. 

Jon sent Mance for several reasons.  No other brother would commit that kind of oathbreaking to divorce a little girl from a marriage.  No other brother had the skills of Mance Rayder who could get in and out of the most secure castle in the north.  Mance is a proven breaker of vows, turncloak, and murderer.  Jon knew this criminal would not hesitate to take Arya from Ramsay.

[teej6]

7 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Melisandre suggests to Jon that he send Mance down south to save Arya but it is decision that the man actually goes. He could have dismissed the whole idea. Or he could have killed Mance as the oathbreaker and traitor that he is. 

Again, can you perhaps quote the implication or allusion you are talking about here? Or at least point me to the chapter this thing is supposedly mentioned? I want to read this myself.

What I could find is that Jeyne talks about being willing to do things with the dog if Ramsay wishes when she tries to make clear that she does not want to betray him. But this doesn't mean they have done this kind of thing already. In fact, Ramsay always insists that Theon wash Jeyne before they do what they do, and that doesn't make it all that likely that dogs figure into that. That doesn't mean they won't go down that road in the future, but the only thing we know is that Ramsay routinely beats his wife, but that isn't a problem in his society.

You can be of the opinion that somebody should save Jeyne from Ramsay. And I agree. But the people in Westeros do not. They even recognize Ramsay as the Lord of the Hornwood despite the fact what the man did to Lady Donella. The point isn't whether Ramsay should be put down as the mad dog he is - of course he should. The question is whether Jon Snow has a right to do that or not. And he doesn't, of course. He doesn't even have a right to try to save his sister from this man.

Not to mention, you know, that Jon has no proof or even evidence that Ramsay is actually mistreating Jeyne. He simply does not want Arya to be married to Ramsay. This is understandable but nevertheless not his call to make. Ramsay can be a sadistic psychopath and mass murderer and still not mistreat his wife. If this was the case Jon would have had no right at all to interfere with that marriage. And that this is possible in this world is shown perfectly with the happy marriage of Roose and Walda.

The point wasn't Aegon the Unworthy, the point is the husband of Merry Meg. The man who sold her and then slowly beat her to death after Prince Viserys returned her to him. This wasn't the sadistic bastard of some great lord, this was just a blacksmith who killed his own wife to restore his honor. It is a classical honor-killing which certain patriarchal cultures still practice to this day in our world. And one could even argue that what he did to Meg is worse than him just cutting the throat of his wife because he had to kill her slowly thanks to the Rule of Six.

If you don't understand that any sort of relationship in which a wife has to obey her husband and be 'protected' by him implicitly includes the fact that the wife is the property of the husband then I honestly can't help you. Even more so, if the husband actually has the legal right (and not just the right of being physically stronger) to beat up his wife whenever she displeases him. This is not a relationship among equals. It is a relationship between master and slave.

How is Ramsay beating up Jeyne not him chastising her as the laws of the Seven Kingdoms permit him to do? What makes you think you can draw a line there? And if so, where the hell goes that line? We have it confirmed that beating a wife daily six times with a rod as thick as a finger is perfectly fine. That is the Rule of Six. Prior to that ruling by Queen Rhaenys it was apparently fine to beat your wife to death in one session. Do you know Ramsay beats her more than six times a day with a rod as thick as his finger? Or less? After all, as things stand he doesn't even spend time with her each day so she might be better off that she could have been.

What you fail to understand is the difference between decent human beings - there are a lot of those in Westeros - and the twisted laws and customs of the people on that continent. Beating up your wife is no crime in that world. And thus Ramsay is also not a criminal for doing that. He is allowed to do it by law. That doesn't mean he is a nice guy, of course. 

Mel's chapter when she hands Mance to Jon two passages stand out: 

Mance Rayder chuckled. “I had my doubts as well, Snow, but why not let her try? It was that, or let Stannis roast me.” 

She pointed with a pale finger. “There he stands, Lord Snow. Arya’s deliverance. A gift from the Lord of Light … and me.”

Firstly, Mance chose to accept Mel/Stannis terms and assist Jon as the alternative was getting burned alive. From his words it does not appear he's doing Jon's bidding but Mel's and he's obviously being controlled by her actions. Secondly, and more importantly, Mel is handing Mance to Jon as a gift not as a prisoner to be hanged. You can interpret the text as Jon having the right to hang Mance from this exhange just as I can argue that Jon did not have the liberty to hang Mance (an act that would most likely displease Stannis) but could use Mance if he so wished as he was a gift from Mel who also happened to be under Mel's spell. I did not argue against your view that Jon chose to sent Mance to rescue his fleeing sister, instead what I stated was that it was not clear from the text if Mance was under Jon's control fully, enough to permit Jon to hang him not fearing any repercussions or displeasure from Stannis or Mel. 

Again you keep harping on the dog sex issue, which I stated to counter your rediculous argument that Ramsay only inflicted humiliating and uncomfortable sexual acts on Jeyne. But if you really want the text here you go:

Jeyne pulled her wolfskins up to her chin. “No. This is some trick. It’s him, it’s my … my lord, my sweet lord, he sent you, this is just some test to make sure that I love him. I do, I do, I love him more than anything.” A tear ran down her cheek. “Tell him, you tell him. I’ll do what he wants … whatever he wants … with him or … or with the dog or … please … he doesn’t need to cut my feet off, I won’t try to run away, not ever...

Now tell me why would Jeyne bring up the issue of having sex with a dog if that was not something that was inflicted on her. Whether it was a threat or it really happened GRRM shows us the frantic and terrible state Jeyne is in to imply the depravity and inhumanity of Ramsay. Or do you think that GRRM just wanted to show us the wild imagination of a frightened young girl towards her husband who chastised her for not doing her duty as a wife?  

You are right I can't see how the vows of marriage that state obedience from a wife and protection by a husband translate to the wife being the husband's property. That's a giant leap for me but go ahead make that assumption if it suits your narrative but don't argue that it's backed by textual evidence, whether explicit or implied. 

The people of Westeros recognize Ramsay as the Lord of Hornwood out of fear of the Lannisters and the Boltons not because they've truly accepted him and his deplorable actions. IIRC, Rodrik Cassel is under the mistaken impression that he killed Ramsay for his vile act. After Theon takes WF, Ramsay's behavior is tolerated by Robb and the rest out of necessity not because they thought he had a right to treat Lady Hornwood the way he did.

Using Aegon the Unworthy or Merry Meg's husband's as examples still does not prove that women were the property of their husbands to do with them as they pleased. These were the aberrant behaviors of certain deviants in society and not the norm or sanctioned by the law of the land.  Your posts have repeatedly shown that you can't prove otherwise.

[Denam_Pavel]

5 hours ago, Ser_Jon_General said:

The hell he can.  Mel, Selyse and Shireen have their own guards, Val and the baby are protected by the presence of the rest of the Wildlings.  To try to forcibly send them to the Boltons would cause a bloodbath (with the Nights Watch being on the losing side).

Plus, handing them over would be an egregious breach of guest rights which, you might have noticed, is held in quite high regard in the North.

It would not be easy at all, I agree. But think of Jon's alternative. Jon himself explained to Stannis how going south with wildlings will cause a reaction from the people of North, they'd make them bleed for every league southwards. Then they intend to assault. The Lord of Winterfell, as in attack Winterfell held against them by larger force during winter, with the Dreadfort still at their back. Both responses are accompanied by suicidal dangers. But while Jon's chosen course is more honourable it also has many more unknowns, the Pink Letter tells them little of what forces they are dealing with, which houses are on Boltons side and what the houses on Stannis' side did after his alleged defeat.   

4 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

The point is, no one can anticipate consequences with any degree of certainty. Ever. All,one can do is try weigh in the many possible outcomes of any given situation, and make the best decision they possibly can within their limited knowledge. 

Yes and that's what Sam, Jon and Bowen all did. Leading them to the resulting situation.

Quote

What further negotiations? For there to be "further" negotiation(s), previous negotiation(s) would have had to have happened, and there was/were none. Ramsay is a monster who writes to Jon saying he has flayed the spearwives, has a man he claims is Mance Rayder in a cage wearing a cloak of human skin, and that, if Jon doesn't roll over and does what he says, he'll march on CB and cut out Jon's heart and eat it. So, for you to say Jon was prejudging Ramsay is utterly ridiculous. 

 

An intimidating letter doesn't aquate to a monster, anymore then Tormund Giantsbane has neccesarily killed giants or how much of Tyrion's reputation he makes use off. Jon does not personally know how much he needs to give Ramsay to buy himself some time. He assessed without knowing him personally, while admitting that only some parts of the Pink Letter are definitely true that nothing was sate him. It was educated guess but a guess all the same. 

Quote

We are told the LC's steward is usually a young brother of good birth who will be groomed for command. Jon fits, as hundreds before him. After all, that's a tradition. 

Yes, Jon's experiences have probably been different from that of many, many young crows. The same is true for all the new recruits. 

Yes, and in Jon's case right away getting a Valyrian steel sword, going on a ranging, staying out there for months and coming back to the LC being too dead to need anymore stewarding means he ultimately had to face up to relatively little of humbling duties of a steward that he looked down on when given the position. And then still as a new recruit, was himself made LC, now completely free of those duties in no time at all. So again, the "Jon is himself a steward" argument to me really cannot be taken at face value and goes accompanied with more then a few astericks.  

Quote

Oh please! I'm now rolling my eyes so hard I can see my brain. Jon put Mance/Rattleshirt out of his misery. Stannis passed the sentence and had him executed. 

Jon personally may have done it for that reason, but wasn't committing a crime in interrupting an execution becayse shooting him with arrows was a form of ending his life, that thing they set him on fire to accomplish and as Lord Commander this was in his authority to do that to him. Because he was a member of the Night's Watch that broke his oaths.

Quote

No, no, no, no. The Warden of the North carries out sentences elsewhere. At CB/NW that is the responsibility of the Lord Commander of the Night's Watch. 

The Warden of North travels some way north for it and the sentenced is delivered by the NW some ways south, in the example we see at the beginning of the series anyway. The point is, the NW themselves still enforce this whole keeping your oaths thing even if they don't personally carry out the sentence. Just letting Mance of all oathbreakers go off southwards is a big deal.

 

Quote

FFS, Marsh cannot know Mance is alive. Nor can the wildlings. They all saw "Mance Rayder" burn. 

Jon tells them he is alive. Does not explain how but makes a public display of taking the Pink Letter that states this serious in every regard.

Quote

I never ever said the wildlings were welcome south of the Wall. Stop twisting what I'm saying.

This started when you stated that Brandon the Builder crowned himself King in the North (wrong!) and that he built the Wall, that then became his border to the North, trapping the wildlings north of it. Then I explained to you that you were wrong about pretty much everything you had said, and that the latter point was completely absurd because of the amount of time it took for the Wall to be built and to reach 700ft. Then, you kept banging on and on about how I might be wrong about this, so I provided you w/ a quote from Martin, stating exactly what I had already said quite a few times. I am very, very done with this point.

I apologise, when you said Brandon the Builder didn't use it as his border and people were able to come and go as they please, I thought this was meant to imply that the Night's Watch wasn't attempting to stop them at this juncture, however difficult this task back then was. The Starks called themselves something else in those, I'll admit that, but Kings of Winter still are kings. The Free Folk make the distinction between them and those south, the "kneelers", because they kneel to kings. Brandon the alleged builder of the Wall being the start of the Stark line of kings in the North (as in kings present in the region immediately south of the Wall, however many others there are) means this emnity can be and seemingly is believed to be as old as the Wall itself. The realms of men may very well have always excluded the Free Folk.

4 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

The latter half of the sentence is such a convulated sentence that (my apologies, for I rarely criticise someone's ability to write a sentence) I can't make any sense even of what you're trying to say.

Jon is taking a host of wildlings south to free Mance Rayder among other things. If he fails, the Watch is screwed, if he succeeds the Watch is also screwed. Cause Mance is the king of these wildlings and has made no oath to be allies of the Watch that he hasn't broken already.

 

Quote

You have seen the results of these muttering and whispers: people retracting their candidacy in order for Slynt to get voted in, Slynt's insubordination, Slynt having help to send CB ravens to KL and betray the NW to Cersei while neither has the authority to send communication without it being read by the LC first, Marsh refusing to drink and eat with Jon, and 4 people knifing Jon with one of them being Marsh who was part of the inital muttering and whispers.

Some of Janos Slynt's last words were "when Tywin Lannister hears about this", showing us how slow the communication here is. He never received that letter from Cersei. At some point words from Slynt reached Pycelle, but all it states is Stannis is courting the wildlings. That need not be related after Jon made LC. And before then Bowen Marsh was castellan. As for eating, Bowen wasn't sitting with Slynt and Thorne anymore when Slynt was disobeying Jon either, GRRM pointedly placed him somewhere else.

[Nevets]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

My point is that he thinks of Arya as a little girl who is most likely getting herself into more trouble by being stubborn and determined. He wants to save her as much from herself as he wants to save her from Ramsay. His view of the real Arya as we know her now is very incomplete, and I doubt he or any other character will ever figure out what exactly Arya Stark has become because female assassins - or perhaps even female serial killers - aren't exactly concepts the people of Westeros can wrap their heads around.

I think Jon is afraid that she would fight back, and get herself hurt even worse, or, most likely killed.  This is not at all unreasonable on his part.  Little girl gets into physical fight with adult male, little girl is going to lose.  And I don't think the current Arya would fare any better, to be honest.  I would be willing to bet there are no sharp objects in Jeyne Poole's bedchamber, for example.  And without weapons, Arya would probably be about as helpless as Jeyne was. 

Also, I'm not sure if it matters, but when Jon sent Mance out, Ramsay and Farya were not yet married.  We know this because Mance and the spearwives performed at the wedding feast.  So she was merely a betrothed at the time, and so may very well have the legal right to leave.

[sweetsunray]

1 hour ago, Denam_Pavel said:

Jon is taking a host of wildlings south to free Mance Rayder among other things. If he fails, the Watch is screwed, if he succeeds the Watch is also screwed. Cause Mance is the king of these wildlings and has made no oath to be allies of the Watch that he hasn't broken already.

The watch is screwed, period. If he does nothing - screwed, because then allegedly an army will attack them from the south. If he even tries to give in to the the demands Queen's Men and wildlings decimate the NW. If you're screwed, at least do the right thing.

If he succeeds the watch ain't screwed. Jon has Mance's son (or so Mance thinks). Jon has Mance's sister-in law. Jon has hostages of the wildlings.

And, quite honestly, the king of the wildlings ain't Mance anymore. It's Jon. The wildlings may not have knelt to him, but they honored him, vowed and pledged themselves to him. The wildlings will not follow Mance anymore as their king, because he was defeated by Stannis. More, they won't follow Mance as a king, when Mance himself worked for Mel and Stannis to save his own life and then went out of his way to free a Stark from the Boltons.

1 hour ago, Denam_Pavel said:

Some of Janos Slynt's last words were "when Tywin Lannister hears about this", showing us how slow the communication here is. He never received that letter from Cersei. At some point words from Slynt reached Pycelle, but all it states is Stannis is courting the wildlings. That need not be related after Jon made LC. And before then Bowen Marsh was castellan. As for eating, Bowen wasn't sitting with Slynt and Thorne anymore when Slynt was disobeying Jon either, GRRM pointedly placed him somewhere else.

Slynt was NOT LC, when Stannis courted the wildlings, JON WAS LC. Now how the hell did Slynt get to send a letter from Castle Black to KL when Jon is LC? Maester Aemon allowed Slynt to send a letter by raven? No chance in hell! Sam allowed it? Also no chance in hell. Clydas allowed it, but he wouldn't have done so unless Marsh vouched for it. And Janos's communication is brought up in the same meeting about Jon's letter to them. When far earlier in a Jaime chapter they only yet know that Stannis arrived at the Wall and thus went North, but nothing about common cause with the wildlings.

Quote

"Until now," said Cersei. "The bastard boy has written us to avow that the Night's Watch takes no side, but his actions give the lie to his words. He has given Stannis food and shelter, yet has the insolence to plead with us for arms and men." (aFfC, Cersei IV)

Jon did not write to Cersei he had given Stannis food and shelter. Slynt did, and he had help.

ETA: are you deliberately obtuse? Marsh and eating was Marsh not partaking of Jon's offered food and drink during a meeting. This was already brought up. Who the hell cares whether he did sit or did not sit with Thorne and Slynt when Slynt was disobeying. He was the sole one who moved to intervene when Jon was going to execute Slynt, and he even almost did a happy dance when Jon changed his mind, said, "No, wait"... before Jon asked for a block instead.

 

Quote

 

"If the boy thinks that he can frighten me, he is mistaken," they heard Lord Janos said. "He would not dare to hang me. Janos Slynt has friends, important friends, you'll see …" The wind whipped away the rest of his words.

This is wrong, Jon thought. "Stop."

"Oh, Seven save us," he heard Bowen Marsh cry out.

The smile that Lord Janos Slynt smiled then had all the sweetness of rancid butter. Until Jon said, "Edd, fetch me a block," and unsheathed Longclaw.

 

 

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, kissdbyfire said:

I don't think it was moronic. I think Jon rolled the dice. And while it may very well be true that Mance is in that cage, we don't really know either way at this point. 

It was moronic to pick Mance for the whole operation. The Boltons capturing the man means they don't need propaganda to bring down either Stannis or Jon. A pretender to the Iron Throne and a Lord Commander of the Night's Watch hiding and abetting and working with a former king-beyond-the-Wall is priceless in itself.

People don't seem to grasp what this means if true. It could mean that the entire North declares for the Boltons now, if played right by them, simply because they hate the wildlings as much as they do.

1 hour ago, kissdbyfire said:

 I didn't say anything about bringing down feudalism in one fell swoop, did I? Change is hard, difficult, dangerous. But both Jon and Dany are indeed bringing much needed change, and hopefully these changes will be only the start. 

What are those changes? Slavery is only a thing in Essos, and I'm pretty sure the idea of it is much, much stronger than Daenerys Targaryen. Dany might be able to destroy the slavers of that generation, perhaps, but she is not going defeat slavery. It will survive in the farther east and south, in Yi Ti, Asshai, Sothoryos, the Basilisk Isles, and from there it will come back to Slaver's Bay and the Free Cities.

And Jon is having even less of an impact than Daenerys. I'm not sure what changes you think he brought about? The pact between the wildlings and the Watch/Northmen? That's no big change, just an alliance forced upon the parties by the circumstances. And even that might not survive Jon's death.

1 hour ago, kissdbyfire said:

Again, where did I say if a woman is running things it means that society isn't misogynistic? 

As to Queen Victoria, it could be argued that women did thrive, since that's when the Women's suffrage movement started in the UK. 

Well, one should assume that a woman running things could have helped make this unnecessary. I know a little bit about Queen Victoria, that is why I mentioned her.

1 hour ago, kissdbyfire said:

But thinking about Arya as a little girl who needs protection, even from herself as you say, doesn't mean that's a misogynistic view. And of course his view of Arya is very incomplete,  he's thinking of Arya as she was when he last saw her. 

It is the view of a man who thinks he has to save a woman from evil men. That is deeply sexist. It is the same kind of rationale that forces women into hiding their skin and hair to *protect* them from the uncontrollable sexual urges of men.

1 hour ago, teej6 said:

Mel's chapter when she hands Mance to Jon two passages stand out: 

Mance Rayder chuckled. “I had my doubts as well, Snow, but why not let her try? It was that, or let Stannis roast me.” 

She pointed with a pale finger. “There he stands, Lord Snow. Arya’s deliverance. A gift from the Lord of Light … and me.”

Firstly, Mance chose to accept Mel/Stannis terms and assist Jon as the alternative was getting burned alive. From his words it does not appear he's doing Jon's bidding but Mel's and he's obviously being controlled by her actions.

That is wrong, because Mance is handed over by Stannis to Jon Snow long after he agreed to deal that saved his life. He is Jon's man now. He is also working with Melisandre, too, of course, but she doesn't have jurisdiction over him.

The same chapter that you are citing here also makes it clear that Mance knows Jon would never allow to go save his sister. Which is a confirmation that Mance needs Jon permission to do anything.

1 hour ago, teej6 said:

Secondly, and more importantly, Mel is handing Mance to Jon as a gift not as a prisoner to be hanged. You can interpret the text as Jon having the right to hang Mance from this exhange just as I can argue that Jon did not have the liberty to hang Mance (an act that would most likely displease Stannis) but could use Mance if he so wished as he was a gift from Mel who also happened to be under Mel's spell. I did not argue against your view that Jon chose to sent Mance to rescue his fleeing sister, instead what I stated was that it was not clear from the text if Mance was under Jon's control fully, enough to permit Jon to hang him not fearing any repercussions or displeasure from Stannis or Mel. 

That gift talk has no real meaning. Stannis has already given Rattleshirt to Jon, and Rattleshirt is Mance. Mel's gift here is revealing to Jon that Rattleshirt isn't Rattleshirt but Mance and willing to go and save his sister. that is the gift, not Mance himself. He already belongs Jon Snow as he makes clear to both Mance and Melisandre before the latter reveals Mance's true identity. He threatened to kill the man where he stood, remember?

There is no reason whatsoever that Jon fears (or cares) for repercussions from either Melisandre or Stannis. He does what he wants. He didn't ask for Stannis' permission when he executed Slynt, so why should he ask for anybody's permission when he kills Mance? He didn't even do that when he had his men kill the men he thought was Mance, remember? When he had his guys shoot the burning Rattleshirt to hasten his death.

Jon later even thinks that it was a madness to send Mance down there and that he should have better killed him. The man is not completely without honor or a conscience. He knows this was a mistake that could undo him.

1 hour ago, teej6 said:

Again you keep harping on the dog sex issue, which I stated to counter your rediculous argument that Ramsay only inflicted humiliating and uncomfortable sexual acts on Jeyne. But if you really want the text here you go:

Jeyne pulled her wolfskins up to her chin. “No. This is some trick. It’s him, it’s my … my lord, my sweet lord, he sent you, this is just some test to make sure that I love him. I do, I do, I love him more than anything.” A tear ran down her cheek. “Tell him, you tell him. I’ll do what he wants … whatever he wants … with him or … or with the dog or … please … he doesn’t need to cut my feet off, I won’t try to run away, not ever...

Now tell me why would Jeyne bring up the issue of having sex with a dog if that was not something that was inflicted on her. Whether it was a threat or it really happened GRRM shows us the frantic and terrible state Jeyne is in to imply the depravity and inhumanity of Ramsay. Or do you think that GRRM just wanted to show us the wild imagination of a frightened young girl towards her husband who chastised her for not doing her duty as a wife?  

Well, I know you will probably hate that, but bestiality is can be defined as 'a humiliating and uncomfortable sexual act'. I have no idea how uncomfortable this is (and have quite honestly little motivation to think about that in detail) but I'm inclined to believe that being beaten by Ramsay is actually worse. In light of the fact that the Ramsay did include Theon somewhat into those things I could imagine that Ramsay may have forced or threatened to force Jeyne to give sexual pleasure to one of his bitches.

The image of a dog actually fucking Jeyne is something you brought up. It is not, as such, in the text.

1 hour ago, teej6 said:

You are right I can't see how the vows of marriage that state obedience from a wife and protection by a husband translate to the wife being the husband's property. That's a giant leap for me but go ahead make that assumption if it suits your narrative but don't argue that it's backed by textual evidence, whether explicit or implied. 

Marriage itself is historically men buying and selling their daughters and sisters. That's what happens when marriages are arranged, that's why you pay a dowry. I'm actually flabbergasted that you think a woman is worth as much as a man or has the same rights as a man if she has to obey her husband. If you have to obey somebody (and can be beaten if you are disobedient) then you are not free to do what you want. And that means that one can, more or less describe you, as a slave. Sure, you can't be sold all that easily to somebody else, etc. but depending the culture you are at the mercy of your husband's male kin after his death. This kind of thing happens still to this day.

And if you go back in the medieval ages you see how women - especially rich heiresses or widows - could essentially be abducted from the street or castles and married against their will to take control of all their possessions. It is the same in the Seven Kingdoms.

You may recall that even a headstrong young ruling lady like Rohanne Webber was very aware that she faced that danger.

1 hour ago, teej6 said:

The people of Westeros recognize Ramsay as the Lord of Hornwood out of fear of the Lannisters and the Boltons not because they've truly accepted him and his deplorable actions. IIRC, Rodrik Cassel is under the mistaken impression that he killed Ramsay for his vile act. After Theon takes WF, Ramsay's behavior is tolerated by Robb and the rest out of necessity not because they thought he had a right to treat Lady Hornwood the way he did.

Ramsay's heinous crime of killing his lady wife is punishable. But not the marriage it itself, never mind that it was done against Lady Donella's will. Rodrik Cassel himself makes that clear. This is the reason why he keeps Reek alive. He hopes his testimony will help resolve the matter with Roose Bolton. Because he is very aware of the fact that Roose will lay claim to the Hornwood lands and title on the basis of the claim of his late son, who claimed them on the basis of the claim of his (late) wife.

1 hour ago, teej6 said:

Using Aegon the Unworthy or Merry Meg's husband's as examples still does not prove that women were the property of their husbands to do with them as they pleased. These were the aberrant behaviors of certain deviants in society and not the norm or sanctioned by the law of the land.  Your posts have repeatedly shown that you can't prove otherwise.

There are countless other examples where women are treated like shit in this world. Hoster Tully aborts the unborn child of his daughter Lysa, Lysa and Cersei are forced into marriages they don't want were they are routinely raped by their husbands (I doubt Lysa *ever* wanted to sleep with Jon Arryn - or do so much as kiss him), and Cersei is beaten by her husband in the front of others, Aerys II rapes and tortures his own sister-wife who was forced to marry this guy by the command of her own father, Catelyn has to marry a man she never even met (granted, that one turns out fine but that's an exception, not the rule).

If you think women aren't the property of their fathers and husbands in this world then something is wrong with your perception. There are good guys in the world, sure, but the laws of this land allows them to mistreat or abuse their women if they misbehave. If Cersei, Catelyn, Lysa, Selyse, you name it don't want to do what their husbands want them to do they cannot object. They have to obey.

54 minutes ago, Nevets said:

I think Jon is afraid that she would fight back, and get herself hurt even worse, or, most likely killed.  This is not at all unreasonable on his part.  Little girl gets into physical fight with adult male, little girl is going to lose.  And I don't think the current Arya would fare any better, to be honest.  I would be willing to bet there are no sharp objects in Jeyne Poole's bedchamber, for example.  And without weapons, Arya would probably be about as helpless as Jeyne was. 

I tend to agree there, but our Arya would never be our Arya if she had been shipped to Ramsay. However, our Arya is actually not so unlikely to actively participate in Ramsay's games. She knows how to kill and feels pretty much nothing when doing it. One can expect that a man like Ramsay would like that very much. He would groom Arya to become a partner in his hunts and the other things he likes to do.

54 minutes ago, Nevets said:

Also, I'm not sure if it matters, but when Jon sent Mance out, Ramsay and Farya were not yet married.  We know this because Mance and the spearwives performed at the wedding feast.  So she was merely a betrothed at the time, and so may very well have the legal right to leave.

That is a valid point. We can say that an Arya who escaped the Boltons before the wedding took place would have had as much a right to ask for sanctuary at the Wall as Alys did. However, Arya was handed over to Roose's care by King Tommen (who, as Joffrey points out in Sansa's case, became her guardian when her father was condemned and executed as a traitor) so Jon would have been obliged to hand over Arya to Roose if he had learned that she had fled to the Wall. Jon could not treat Roose or even Ramsay the same way he treated Cregan Karstark.

The only chance Jon would have in any scenario is to send Arya as quickly and quietly away from the Wall to the Free Cities. She could only stay there if Stannis had actually won his war in the North.

It is somewhat different in Alys' case because neither Arnolf nor Cregan are the legal guardians of Alys Karstark. But if he brother Harrion had been the man intending to marry her to some of his buddies against her will Jon could have done nothing to stop him.

[HallowedMarcus]

On 08/07/2017 at 10:07 PM, Lord Varys said:

I doubt Jon will be able to pursue the march against Winterfell idea after his resurrection. He will have other things on his plate - like putting himself back together and dealing with the aftermath of his resurrection. That is, if Jon comes back quickly after his death. Which is not a given at all.

   Quickly return I hope because if it takes to long more deranged he might become, like Catelyn who became a monster. If he does return let it be a lá Beric Dondarrion. I agree that there lots of things to do. Deal with his killers, deal with the Queens men on the Wall, deal with Melisandre. leave or not the wall and so on.

On 08/07/2017 at 10:07 PM, Lord Varys said:

And there is a pretty good chance that Stannis will sent his own letter to the Wall once he has dealt with the Boltons.

    Do you believe Stannis will defeat the Boltons? In a complete way (defeating his forces, taking Winterfell and Killing or arresting Roose and Ramsay Bolton) or in an incomplete way -the way I believe- (defeating his allies and some of his forces but not taken back Winterfell)? If not complete way I believe Jon will try to finish it, especially if Sansa goes with the Vale to retake Winterfell.

On 08/07/2017 at 10:07 PM, Lord Varys said:

on might essentially become Stannis' heir,

    Have you forgotten Robb's testament? Let's see what happens.

[Lord Varys]

3 minutes ago, HallowedMarcus said:

   Quickly return I hope because if it takes to long more deranged he might become, like Catelyn who became a monster. If he does return let it be a lá Beric Dondarrion. I agree that there lots of things to do. Deal with his killers, deal with the Queens men on the Wall, deal with Melisandre. leave or not the wall and so on.

Jon is not really dead. His body was killed, but his spirit lives on in Ghost. That much is clear. That means they only have to resurrect his body (most likely via the kiss of fire Thoros gave to Beric. But in Jon's case it will only resurrect his body, making an empty shell like Drogo. They will have to find a way to reunite body and spirit. And that could be very complicated.

In addition, they might have much better things to do than to prepare Jon's funeral after the assassination. And even when they finally realize that the kiss brought him back - and that his spirit is in Ghost now, something that Borroq is going to realize - they actually have to have Ghost to try to reunite body and spirit. I'm not sure Jon-Ghost is going to be in the mood to hang out at the Wall after he find himself in the wolf. In fact, I think he will be very angry, afraid, and traumatized about his own death.

And as a completely untrained skinchanger he'll come back changed from death. He'll be more wolf than man. It may be that this process is reversible but the Jon we see after his return from death is most likely going to be a guy who likes his meat raw, who prefers to sleep outside or on the floor, and who enjoys killing his food (and perhaps even other animals and humans) for sport and fun. He will be changed. That's the whole point of killing him in the first place. You don't do that to have him come back unchanged.

The Queen's Men are no danger. There are at best a few dozen of them there, the men Selyse brought with her. And Melisandre's own guard is even smaller, she doesn't have any knights whatsoever.

The situation at the Wall itself also should be settled without Jon. He is dead. His killers and the wildlings will resolve things, one way or another.

The things Jon might be forced to deal with thereafter is the Weeper and his attack on the Shadow Tower. He'll come with a strong host of several thousand men, and it is quite likely that he'll assemble most of the remaining fighters from Mance's host. I'm pretty sure he'll cross the bridge, destroy the Shadow Tower, and invade the North, most likely the clansmen lands who are conveniently completely bereft of defenders, thanks to Jon and Stannis.

3 minutes ago, HallowedMarcus said:

Do you believe Stannis will defeat the Boltons? In a complete way (defeating his forces, taking Winterfell and Killing or arresting Roose and Ramsay Bolton) or in an incomplete way -the way I believe- (defeating his allies and some of his forces but not taken back Winterfell)? If not complete way I believe Jon will try to finish it, especially if Sansa goes with the Vale to retake Winterfell.

I think Stannis will take Winterfell, yes. He has all the necessary pieces in hand to do it. A maester to feed false information to Roose, the Karstark betrayal uncovered to use them to launch a surprise attack against the enemy, and he has a chance to strike a deal with the Manderlys. In addition, there is his plan to use the lake as a weapon against the attacking knights.

If he wins at the village it should be comparatively easy to take Winterfell since most Northmen in the castle will then be willing to betray the Boltons. And he is very likely going to be able to sneak his own men into the castle - among the Karstarks, say, or with the returning Manderlys. And then all they need to do is to open one gate. Once Stannis' men are inside the castle the Boltons will be finished.

Sansa is not likely to go to the Vale. Not in the middle of winter. Aegon's arrival might soon force them to finally show their colors and participate in the war. It will allow Sansa to finally strike back against both Cersei and the Tyrells who treated her so badly while she was at court. She needs her enemies gone before she can properly reclaim her seat, and how better do that than by supporting a Targaryen pretender who also wants to topple King Tommen.

Sansa still stands accused of regicide. That is not going to go away. Not while Cersei's children are still around. They and the people controlling them - especially the Tyrells - will have to persecute Joffrey's murderers. And a victorious King Aegon would gladly restore Sansa to Winterfell. He might even be inclined to marry, something she might even want more. The Iron Throne is much better than Winterfell.

3 minutes ago, HallowedMarcus said:

 Have you forgotten Robb's testament? Let's see what happens.

I meant Jon as Stannis' heir in a less direct sense, like him being his successor as the great leader in the fight against the Others. I'm reasonably confident that Jon and Stannis will continue to work together to fight against the Others, and it is not that unlikely that Stannis is going to look to Jon as his natural heir, the man he looks to defend his wife and daughter should something happen to him.

Robb's will seems to be with Howland Reed, and that man knows that Jon is not Eddard Stark's son nor Robb Stark's half-brother. In that sense it should be pretty much meaningless unless Howland does not reveal the truth. 

[HallowedMarcus]

36 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Jon is not really dead. His body was killed, but his spirit lives on in Ghost

    If so he just has to go near his awaken but lifeless body and warg back to his former self, to take over this/his body which will have no resistance to his 'takeover'.

37 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

I think he will be very angry, afraid, and traumatized about his own death.

   Beric Dondarrion wasn't.

   Lord Varys said " Robb's will seems to be with Howland Reed, and that man knows that Jon is not Eddard Stark's son nor Robb Stark's half-brother. In that sense it should be pretty much meaningless unless Howland does not reveal the truth."

   If he does not tell the North it will mean a lot. However, if he tells the North that Lyanna is his mother (if she really is) it will mean even more so.

[Annalee]

8 minutes ago, HallowedMarcus said:

    If so he just has to go near his awaken but lifeless body and warg back to his former self, to take over this/his body which will have no resistance to his 'takeover'.

IIRC, skinchanging doesn't work that way.  The ability stays with the body.  So say Jon wargs into his dog before he dies.  His body dies while his consciousness is in his dog.  He is trapped forever in Ghost.  He gets a second life, which is more than people normally get, but as a wolf.

   Beric Dondarrion wasn't.

   Lord Varys said " Robb's will seems to be with Howland Reed, and that man knows that Jon is not Eddard Stark's son nor Robb Stark's half-brother. In that sense it should be pretty much meaningless unless Howland does not reveal the truth."

   If he does not tell the North it will mean a lot. However, if he tells the North that Lyanna is his mother (if she really is) it will mean even more so.

 

[Lord Varys]

5 minutes ago, HallowedMarcus said:

    If so he just has to go near his awaken but lifeless body and warg back to his former self, to take over this/his body which will have no resistance to his 'takeover'.

From what Varamyr told us you don't take your skinchanger ability with you into your second life. Jon's skinchanger ability should die with his body, and he'll then be trapped in Ghost. Perhaps the potential for skinchanging will be reawaken in his body but I'd not count on Jon being able to access it when his spirit is stuck in Ghost. During life a skinchanger never completely leaves his or her human body. They are just sleeping/unconscious when they are away, not dead.

That's why it is not unlikely that they will need an outside force to get him back into Ghost. And that could take quite some time even after his body has been physically resurrected. It might be something Bran enters the game somehow. He might contact Borroq.

5 minutes ago, HallowedMarcus said:

   Beric Dondarrion wasn't.

Beric wasn't killed by men he trusted and did find himself stuck in the mind and body of some animal. Once you think like an animal you become an animal. Just think what it might do to you if you had to live as a wolf for just a couple of days. And it might be much longer in Jon's case. You recall that you *were* a human, once, but each they it will be harder and harder to remember.

5 minutes ago, HallowedMarcus said:

If he does not tell the North it will mean a lot. However, if he tells the North that Lyanna is his mother (if she really is) it will mean even more so.

But quite a few Northmen already know both Bran and Rickon are still alive. That should mean much more to them. I find it doubtful that they are going to turn to a man of the Night's Watch who (allegedly) returned from death. And Jon is not likely to accept any crowns or lordships once he finds out that Bran and Rickon are still out there. And Sansa and Arya, too.

[Praetor Xyn]

Sophistry versus logic in a nutshell. If you are on the same side as Ramsay Bolton, one of if not the only 100% black character(s) in this story, you are wrong, period.

One can absolutely agree Bowen Marsh had the right to do something, but assassinating his Lord Commander is not on that list.

Finally traditions are not laws and we have zero textual evidence of any laws governing the Night's Watch beyond the vows, and Jaime is the authority on vows in our story, the lesson being that words are wind if keeping your vows means allowing evil to happen.

[Lord Freypie]

Personnally if it wasn't complete improvisation,  I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Jon's execution in the event he "betrayed" the watch was decided by others than Marsh and far before, giving the murderers some legitimacy to say "for the Watch".

I mean what may have happened, just after Jon's election, Jon who was an unreliable 15 years old, known to have already ignored his vows one time and accused by some to be a wildling agent, turncloak, supporter of a rebel faction in the 7K, etc... is the Nightwatch old guard secretely gathered and debated about what to do if these fears ended true (including giving the authority to Marsh to get rid of Jon if some condition was met)..

By old guard I mean a group larger than the usual suspects, that may have included all the main actors of the election present at CB, not only Jon's enemies (Thorne, Slynt) and the bigot party (Marsh, Celador, Yarwick) but also Cotter Pyke and Mallister who may have supported Jon because he was supposed to be "Aemon candidate" but had no reason to be 100% confident about this boy they barely knew (after all a 110 year old blind maester may well make a mistake) and who was under so many accusations.

There may be a little hint Cotter Pyke at least had a limited trust in Jon, in the fact he named a Thorne cronie to lead Eastwatch (and a ser, a very strange choice for Cotter Pyke knowing his disdain for nobility) when he was sent to Hardhome, a possible trap. 

There's less on Denys Mallister, but having fought the Weeper at the bridge of skulls with Marsh (a battle where an hundred or so brothers were killed) he's probably not very supportive of a LC taking a soft stance about wildlings. The few time we hear of him after Jon's election he's spending his time asking for men in case the weeper attacks again and unhappy about the few Jon gave him.

Having them in the "conspiracy" is the kind of little twist GRRM may pull to make his readers think twice about Jon's actions, and his world more grey than black or white. If Jon wasn't slain by a small minority of stupid bigots / possible Lannister agents, but executed after the main sources of legitimacy after the lord commander, acting as the Night Watch deep state, gave their agreement (long time ago in the form "if he goes that far consider him as a traitor") and the mission to Marsh to do what was necessary in this case.

This scenario may explain why Marsh decided to act in the worse possible moment, after wildlings crossed the wall rather than before and when they outnumber the crows at Castle Black : year old conditionnal orders couldn't predict this precise situation and if Marsh waited for the conditions to be met he couldn't act before.

It may also be one more explanation for his tears. If, as much he disagreed with Jon, he was expecting him not to cross the line up to the last moment, and so not having to carry his orders. As much he disagreed with him Marsh may even have been in the "let's let a chance to Jon" camp and delayed as much possible, giving him more chances than originally planned (so he feels especially guilty to have let the situation degenerate up to this point).

The last warning of Marsh in Jon XII : “If the wildlings uphold the terms of the bargain, all will go as you’ve commanded.” (a soft threat meaning Jon will be considered responsible of what wildlings will do once allowed south of the wall, so if they don't respect the bargain Jon can't expect his orders to continue being followed) may be a sign a rebellion against Jon was already decided in the event his wildling policy turned bad / too generous, but Marsh himself was still wanting to let him a chance at this point.

[The Commentator]

12 hours ago, Praetor Xyn said:

Sophistry versus logic in a nutshell. If you are on the same side as Ramsay Bolton, one of if not the only 100% black character(s) in this story, you are wrong, period.

Oh, you mean like those people who side with the harpy, the masters, and the slavers?  Saying Jon was wrong and Bowen was right is not supporting Ramsay.  It is not about Ramsay.  It is about condemning Jon for being a traitor and perverting justice.

One can absolutely agree Bowen Marsh had the right to do something, but assassinating his Lord Commander is not on that list.

Finally traditions are not laws and we have zero textual evidence of any laws governing the Night's Watch beyond the vows, and Jaime is the authority on vows in our story, the lesson being that words are wind if keeping your vows means allowing evil to happen.

Bowen Marsh not only had the right but the responsibility to stop Jon from leading the wildlings against the Warden of the North.  Like it or not, Roose is legally the Warden of the North.  To attack Ramsay is to attack House Bolton.  I don't think Bowen was doing it to punish Jon.  It was a desperate attempt to stop a looney lord commander from doing more damage than he has already done.

 

[Nevets]

17 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I tend to agree there, but our Arya would never be our Arya if she had been shipped to Ramsay. However, our Arya is actually not so unlikely to actively participate in Ramsay's games. She knows how to kill and feels pretty much nothing when doing it. One can expect that a man like Ramsay would like that very much. He would groom Arya to become a partner in his hunts and the other things he likes to do.

Actually, with her early killings, she felt some guilt and shame, such that she wouldn't tell either Edric Dayne or Harwin about them, Harwin because it would be too much like telling her father.  That's not feeling nothing.  Even in Braavos, she hasn't killed anybody she knows to be an innocent (she had to be pressured to kill Insurance Man), and she has yet to torture or torment anybody.  (WOW spoiler)

While she toyed somewhat with Raff, the injuring and killing was quite quick.

 I can't imagine her joining Ramsay, or Ramsay realizing that she is willing to kill.  But I think he would still take precautions.

17 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That is a valid point. We can say that an Arya who escaped the Boltons before the wedding took place would have had as much a right to ask for sanctuary at the Wall as Alys did. However, Arya was handed over to Roose's care by King Tommen (who, as Joffrey points out in Sansa's case, became her guardian when her father was condemned and executed as a traitor) so Jon would have been obliged to hand over Arya to Roose if he had learned that she had fled to the Wall. Jon could not treat Roose or even Ramsay the same way he treated Cregan Karstark.

The only chance Jon would have in any scenario is to send Arya as quickly and quietly away from the Wall to the Free Cities. She could only stay there if Stannis had actually won his war in the North.

I think that was essentially Jon's plan.  To send her to Braavos quietly without anybody really being the wiser.  Obviously,it didn't quite work out that way.  I also think that when/if FArya arrives at the Wall, they will do something similar.  Get her out of the way.  Especially if she has an escort, sending her away is preferable to a fight.

14 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Jon is not really dead. His body was killed, but his spirit lives on in Ghost. That much is clear. That means they only have to resurrect his body (most likely via the kiss of fire Thoros gave to Beric. But in Jon's case it will only resurrect his body, making an empty shell like Drogo. They will have to find a way to reunite body and spirit. And that could be very complicated.

I am not entirely convinced that his body is dead.  Certainly it is likely to cause serious injury, but given the type of weapon used (daggers) and the likelihood that Jon was wearing protective clothing like leather, and think clothing for the cold, I think survival is not out of the question.  If, however, he warged into Ghost, it might be some time before he "returns", so to say.  Or he could be resurrect like Beric, but still unconscious because of his injuries.  We'll just have to wait and see. 

[Denam_Pavel]

22 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

The watch is screwed, period. If he does nothing - screwed, because then allegedly an army will attack them from the south. If he even tries to give in to the the demands Queen's Men and wildlings decimate the NW. If you're screwed, at least do the right thing.

If he succeeds the watch ain't screwed. Jon has Mance's son (or so Mance thinks). Jon has Mance's sister-in law. Jon has hostages of the wildlings.

And, quite honestly, the king of the wildlings ain't Mance anymore. It's Jon. The wildlings may not have knelt to him, but they honored him, vowed and pledged themselves to him. The wildlings will not follow Mance anymore as their king, because he was defeated by Stannis. More, they won't follow Mance as a king, when Mance himself worked for Mel and Stannis to save his own life and then went out of his way to free a Stark from the Boltons.

 

Yeah, that's not an idea Jon was in any hurry to sell to his brothers. He wasn't THAT suicidal.

 

Quote

Slynt was NOT LC, when Stannis courted the wildlings, JON WAS LC. Now how the hell did Slynt get to send a letter from Castle Black to KL when Jon is LC? Maester Aemon allowed Slynt to send a letter by raven? No chance in hell! Sam allowed it? Also no chance in hell. Clydas allowed it, but he wouldn't have done so unless Marsh vouched for it. And Janos's communication is brought up in the same meeting about Jon's letter to them. When far earlier in a Jaime chapter they only yet know that Stannis arrived at the Wall and thus went North, but nothing about common cause with the wildlings.

 

No one was LC when Stannis and his wildling prisoners first arrived at the Wall. But Marsh was castellan and is not breaking any oath for allowing a brother to send a letter to his home. This meeting was also the first meeting that they learned of Jon becoming LC. Through Jon's own letter. If the Slynt's letter was the older one, no rules need have been broken by Slynt or Marsh. If it was a more recent one, then Slynt certainly did and someone must have helped him. It's not enough to condemn Marsh.

Quote

 

ETA: are you deliberately obtuse? Marsh and eating was Marsh not partaking of Jon's offered food and drink during a meeting. This was already brought up. Who the hell cares whether he did sit or did not sit with Thorne and Slynt when Slynt was disobeying. He was the sole one who moved to intervene when Jon was going to execute Slynt, and he even almost did a happy dance when Jon changed his mind, said, "No, wait"... before Jon asked for a block instead.

 

 

Showing relief that someone isn't about to die isn't oath breaking. Nor is opting against eating meals with the boss. Showing solidarity with someone that is, I can see as being a source of dissent. Going for your weapon when this person your threatened is. But that's Thorne, not Marsh. He seemingly respected Jon's authority to a point back then. Maybe the Pink Letter was where that changed. Maybe Cersei's letter arriving after Slynt was already dead is where that changed. But that letter need not have found it's way into Marsh's hands to be kept out of Jon's. Jon's got plenty more enemies where Marsh came from. And the leagues the raven has to travel to get to Castle Black are nothing to scoff at. And Pycelle's office isn't exactly the most secure. Varys may not have liked the idea of Cersei vanquishing one of her enemies at this juncture.

[sweetsunray]

Just now, Denam_Pavel said:

No one was LC when Stannis and his wildling prisoners first arrived at the Wall. But Marsh was castellan and is not breaking any oath for allowing a brother to send a letter to his home. This meeting was also the first meeting that they learned of Jon becoming LC. Through Jon's own letter. If the Slynt's letter was the older one, no rules need have been broken by Slynt or Marsh. If it was a more recent one, then Slynt certainly did and someone must have helped him. It's not enough to condemn Marsh.

Cersei knows that LC Jon is feeding and having deals with Stannis. You're just cherry picking.

[Denam_Pavel]

Just now, sweetsunray said:

Cersei knows that LC Jon is feeding and having deals with Stannis. You're just cherry picking.

Which chapter was this discussed in?