Was Eddard a hostage in the vale?

[St Daga]

2 hours ago, Ferocious Veldt Roarer said:

"What if Robert and Ned were hostages, just nobody knew about it and nobody mentioned it?"

Frankly, I see absolutely no point.

I am just questioning some of the wording in the text. GRRM is vague and tricky, and while it's possible that I am over analyzing some wording, I think it would be an explanation for why Aerys just thought he could demand Jon Arryn send him the heads of his wards, who are at this point, grown men, by Westerosi standards, and should not be considered wards or under Jon Arryn's control as far as execution goes.

[St Daga]

1 hour ago, Consigliere said:

No, Ned was not a hostage. He was being fostered in The Vale. Per Martin: http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/Some_Questions

Yes, I used this link in my OP as an argument against my theory. I am simply questioning some of the wording in the actual text.

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

17 minutes ago, St Daga said:

I am just questioning some of the wording in the text. GRRM is vague and tricky, and while it's possible that I am over analyzing some wording, I think it would be an explanation for why Aerys just thought he could demand Jon Arryn send him the heads of his wards, who are at this point, grown men, by Westerosi standards, and should not be considered wards or under Jon Arryn's control as far as execution goes.

They called him "Mad King Aerys" for a reason.

And asking for Ned and Bob's heads was just a cherry on top of his most recent murder spree, with Brandon and Rickard (and that was gruesome), Brandon's companions and their fathers. Basically, Aerys believed the whole world should bow to his royal will, no matter how unreasonable it was.

Yes, you are overthinking it.

[St Daga]

1 hour ago, Ralphis Baratheon said:

Think of this too, Aerys killed Elbert Arryn then sent a raven to Jon Arryn commanding him to kill his foster sons. Why wouldn't he keep Elbert Arryn alive and use him as leverage against Jon Arryn to give him Ned and or Robert?

In a thread of few weeks back I point to  Aerys asking Jon Arryn to break Guest Right in order to kill his foster sons as another reason why Aerys was crazy and/or the people around him wanted him to come off that way. This is a man who also mocked and violated the rules of Trail by Combat when he chose "fire" as his champion. If he'll do that then why not ask another Lord to violate the terms of Guest Right? At that point I think he felt he was above any laws of men. He was also going to burn down King's Landing with himself in it.

I would be interested in the link to the thread that you are talking about, if you wouldn't mind posting that. 

It would have been smart of Aerys to keep all of those people as hostages rather than killing them. Anyone of them would be a great tool to keep people in line. Joffrey would have been smarter to keep Ned as a hostage to control the north instead of having him executed. Was Joffrey "mad" or just an a-hole trying to show how powerful he was, or thought he was. Robb would have been smarter to hold Rickard Karstark as hostage instead of executing him. Was Robb's decision madness or did he just make a bad decision. One bad decision snowballed into many for Robb. Was this what happened to Aerys, also?

There is certainly the aspect of Aerys being "mad" (the long hair, the long fingernails, the paranoia, the execution orders), but was he really as insane as people think? Cruel, yes, I think many of the Targaryen's have a cruel streak, and what ever happened to Aerys at Duskendale did not help him. But he wasn't wrong to think that people, including probably his own son and heir, were plotting against him. History is told by the victor's, and that was certainly not Aerys. And while the actual events of history don't change, what we think of as history can changes with interpretation and knowledge. 

I would say that most kings feel they are above the laws of men. Many king's claim their right to rule is ordained by God, and are even willing in some cases to defy the law of god as well, such as Henry VIII, when he split with the church that had blessed his crown, and created his own church to support his rule and his personal wishes. Was Henry VIII "mad"? Some might argue that he was.

[Consigliere]

32 minutes ago, St Daga said:

Yes, I used this link in my OP as an argument against my theory. I am simply questioning some of the wording in the actual text.

It's alot more than a mere argument against. It kills the theory completely. Hostages are not free to come and go as they please, as Ned was according to Martin. Furthermore, even early on during his fostering, Ned was free to visit Winterfell occasionally. Again not something afforded to a hostage. This renders the Ned-Theon comparison invalid. Martin also makes it clear that when they were considered "men grown" both Ned and Robert chose to spend some of their time in The Vale.

Also, and this in only my opinion, Martin is not nearly as vague and tricky as some like to think and I strongly suspect that if this series is ever finished, it will be alot more straightforward than some expect.

[Ralphis Baratheon]

1 hour ago, St Daga said:

I would be interested in the link to the thread that you are talking about, if you wouldn't mind posting that. 

It would have been smart of Aerys to keep all of those people as hostages rather than killing them. Anyone of them would be a great tool to keep people in line. Joffrey would have been smarter to keep Ned as a hostage to control the north instead of having him executed. Was Joffrey "mad" or just an a-hole trying to show how powerful he was, or thought he was. Robb would have been smarter to hold Rickard Karstark as hostage instead of executing him. Was Robb's decision madness or did he just make a bad decision. One bad decision snowballed into many for Robb. Was this what happened to Aerys, also?

There is certainly the aspect of Aerys being "mad" (the long hair, the long fingernails, the paranoia, the execution orders), but was he really as insane as people think? Cruel, yes, I think many of the Targaryen's have a cruel streak, and what ever happened to Aerys at Duskendale did not help him. But he wasn't wrong to think that people, including probably his own son and heir, were plotting against him. History is told by the victor's, and that was certainly not Aerys. And while the actual events of history don't change, what we think of as history can changes with interpretation and knowledge. 

I would say that most kings feel they are above the laws of men. Many king's claim their right to rule is ordained by God, and are even willing in some cases to defy the law of god as well, such as Henry VIII, when he split with the church that had blessed his crown, and created his own church to support his rule and his personal wishes. Was Henry VIII "mad"? Some might argue that he was.

I don't remember the thread as Guest Right wasn't the main topic. The gist was someone was saying Jon Arryn should have did what Aerys commanded and killed Eddard and Robert instead of calling his banners. I argued that killing Eddard and Robert would be a violation of Guest Right. Not much became of it after that involving the Guest Right point.  

Eddard Stark admitted his "treason" thinking Joffrey would send him to the Wall. Joffrey was fully within his rights to have Ned executed after Ned's confession of guilt. Rickard Karstark admitted he murdered the Lannister kids as well, Robb was within his rights to have him executed. Rickard Stark asked for a trail that Eddard and Karstark never asked for and Aerys made a sick joke out of it. Also both Robb and Joff were kids who just became Kings where as Aerys had been King for years so that also makes the comparison weak. IMO

If Aerys just had long nails and dirty hair he'd just be eccentric and not Mad. No other King mocked the faith by making a joke out of a Trail by Combat for a powerful Lord. If Aerys thought he could turn his noise at the tradition of Trail by Combat he could do the same thing with Guest Right.  Aerys was Mad the whole realm including his son knew it.  Until there is evidence to the contrary I'll stand by that opinion.

1 hour ago, Consigliere said:

It's alot more than a mere argument against. It kills the theory completely. Hostages are not free to come and go as they please, as Ned was according to Martin. Furthermore, even early on during his fostering, Ned was free to visit Winterfell occasionally. Again not something afforded to a hostage. This renders the Ned-Theon comparison invalid. Martin also makes it clear that when they were considered "men grown" both Ned and Robert chose to spend some of their time in The Vale.

I have to agree with this. I don't see why GRRM would flat out lie.

[St Daga]

3 hours ago, elder brother jonothor dar said:

Yes and no Quentyn is similar to Myrcella they are not hostages but are in a very dangerous situation.  They are a sign of trust and the opposite of taking a hostage as they are given up freey.

 

3 hours ago, elder brother jonothor dar said:

Back to Quentyn how do you imagine Jon walks up to sunspear, apologies for the brutal murder of his sister and children acknowledges that the whole of Dorne is about to revolt, then tells the Prince that to return to the kings peace all he has to do is give up his son as a hostage; and walks out with him?

Well, Myrcella is both fostered in Dorne but she is also a hostage, depending on how she is used and by who. Even Cersei, whose intelligence I question, recognizes that! She has every reason to be angry with Tyrion about that. 

As to Quentyn, I don't know how Jon Arryn pulled it off, but I believe he did. I think Jon Arryn was quite a bit of a politician, and maybe did not always play so nice! I also think it's very possible that Doran exchanged a child from the water gardens and claimed that was his son Quentyn, and that was the child that was sent to Yronwood. I think that might have been a reason that Doran might have allowed that "wardship" without much fuss, because he wasn't his child at all. Otherwise, why does House Martell care about the feelings of House Yronwood. Those houses have long been, if not outright enemies, then not on good terms. It would be like Rickard Stark sending Benjen to the Bolton's to foster, which seems pretty hard to believe.

I think it's happened more in the story than we think. I think it is happening with the current generation and I think it happened with the past generation. I also admit this tinfoil is very shiny and I could be very wrong.

4 hours ago, elder brother jonothor dar said:

You seem hung up on the idea that wards = hostage, to make somebody a hostage and a ward you need power over them, the Greyjoys where defeated and as terms of peace he had to give up his 1 remaining son to guarantee his obedience.

I don't think that all wards are hostages, but I do think that some wards are hostages! I don't think Jaime was a hostage of Sumner Crakehill, I don't think Oberyn Martell was a hostage of House Qorgyle. I don't think Brandon Stark was a hostage of House Dustin, to name a few. I also don't think it a coincidence that GRRM tell's us early in Game that Theon is a ward, then we are told that Ned was a ward, then we are told that Theon is actually a hostage treated as a ward, therefore ... I think it's a pattern for GRRM in revealing that information. I could also be entirely wrong. I don't expect to change any minds with this but I am interested in some discussion or information that could prove my theory wrong or straighten out my cockeyed thoughts!

Yes we are told exactly why Theon is taken as Ned's ward/Robert's hostage, because GRRM want's us to know that. I also recognize that GRRM seems to want this to be a complicated puzzle and I don't think he wants it to be easy. And he tells us what he wants us to know. Am I over-reading the text? Maybe! I will admit that after my umpteenth time completely through the books, and many spot and character reads, every line can jump out at a person and remind them of another line in the book. Is that intentional or is GRRM not as complicated a writer as I think he is? I tend to think he is very complicated! And much smarter than the lot of us!

4 hours ago, elder brother jonothor dar said:

Why does Ned end up in the vale?  If there by his fathers concent why does the king suddenly decree that he should be a hostage and Jon should be his keeper?

The king could simply summon any of his subjects to the capital and seize them if he wished no need to have a convoluted arrangement to hold a 2nd son.

Maybe that information has not been revealed to us yet, much like the information about Eddard traveling via boat through the Bite and through White Harbor wasn't revealed to us until Dance. GRRM tells us what he wants us to know when he wants us to know it. I don't happen to think the story of the Fisherman's Daughter is a red herring but very important to the story we are being told.

As to why Aerys would do any of the things he does are hard to say. Was it his "madness", his paranoia, his faithful council from Lord Varys, council from friends he thought he could trust? 

[devilish]

4 hours ago, elder brother jonothor dar said:

 

 

Why does Ned end up in the vale?  If there by his fathers concent why does the king suddenly decree that he should be a hostage and Jon should be his keeper?

The king could simply summon any of his subjects to the capital and seize them if he wished no need to have a convoluted arrangement to hold a 2nd son.

The battle of ninepenny kings brought most of Westerosi nobility together however one main family was missing ie the Starks of Winterfell. That must have hurt Rickard who was one of the very few Stark Lords to actually bother looking past his icy region. Maybe Rickard thought that by sending Ned to the Vale he would be able to build a bond between House Arryn, House Baratheon and House Stark. Maybe Rickard wanted to make sure that this oaf he's marrying his daughter to wasn't an idiot after all. Benjen was too young for the task and Brandon was too short tempered for it. 

[St Daga]

3 hours ago, Ferocious Veldt Roarer said:

And asking for Ned and Bob's heads was just a cherry on top of his most recent murder spree, with Brandon and Rickard (and that was gruesome), Brandon's companions and their fathers.

Maybe, maybe not. I don't expect to change anyone's mind. Elbert Arryn is interesting however. His father Ronnel was Jon Arryn's brother, but Ronnel died and Elbert was left as Jon's heir. So, when Aerys summoned the men responsible for these men who rode with Brandon to Kings Landing, why was Jon Arryn not summoned? Maybe he was and was just to smart to leave the vale. Maybe Aerys didn't summon Jon from the Vale because he thought he could trust Jon! It's probably not the case but it's unusual to me that Jon was not summoned to KL to speak for his heir, Elbert! There is a lot that we don't know or haven't been told yet about the events leading up to the rebellion. We know nothing about who Kyle Royce and Jeffrey Mallister and Ethan Glover's father's were, and if those men came to KL and died with their sons. It could very well be a loophole that GRRM wrote not intending much more of a back story, but he is so detailed about so many things, I find it hard to believe it's not a purposeful omission. 

Like any information on Brandon, Eddard, Lyanna and Benjen's mother Lyarra. I think there is something important he yet needs to tell us about Lyarra Stark! But I am side tracking myself, so ...never mind.

3 hours ago, Ferocious Veldt Roarer said:

Yes, you are overthinking it.

I admit I very well could be. Time will tell, I guess.

[thranta flyer]

Going back to the term "ward" itself, in the world of ASoIaF, I think that anyone who hears "x is a ward of y" can know several things:

1)  Y is responsible for the financial aspects of raising X.

2)  Y is also responsible for the education of X in terms of learning politics/fighting/religion/etc... as these are all things anyone in any great house may need.

I think that there are also some immediate questions that will also be asked:

Why is this person a ward? 

Is this a ward on friendly terms, has there been an "exchange" of children/goods/promises/etc...? 

Is this child a hostage?

Does the child need fostering away from home because home is not safe?

Is there an adequate teacher at home?  (Do they have a parent, a maester, etc...)

There are so many reasons that a ward could be fostered out.  I think that the best way to approach the term "ward" is to think of what a person would glean from "ward" immediately.  One most important things the person meeting the ward would understand is that no matter what the reasons for the ward being a ward, the lord responsible for the ward has adopted them legally in terms of raising that ward as their own child.  The lord may choose how to treat the ward, but that ward must still be treated as a noble son/daughter of a noble house with all the protections of that house.  A kid in Theon's situation is no less protected (unless his father acts up) than one in Eddard or Myrcella's positions.  All three of them are there for very important reasons, and any jeopardy to their safety is call for war.  That's why taking wards works because the nature of a ward can change with the circumstances.

I just had an interesting thought about Theon.  Even though Theon thinks Eddard treats him coldly, Eddard does treat him well.  Theon squires for him at times, as he did during execution of the man of the night's watch; it's Theon, not Rob or Jon, who gives Eddard Ice.  I have a feeling that if Balon had started acting up while Theon was a ward, even though Robert would have been within his rights to call for Theon's head, I think that Jon Arryn and Eddard would have at least attempted to prevail upon Robert for a second solution.  I can see them going after Balon, Euron, and Victarion, then sticking Theon on the throne with a less threatening Uncle Harlaw as his regent.

We forgot to mention one really important set of wards that double as hostages.  Dany takes the kids from the noble families in Meereen and fosters them with the help of Barriston who agonizes over whether he could actually kill those kids or not, if it came to that.

[Lucius Lovejoy]

7 hours ago, Ferocious Veldt Roarer said:

"What if Robert and Ned were hostages, just nobody knew about it and nobody mentioned it?"

Frankly, I see absolutely no point.

I stopped reading posts after this one.  It answered it.

In reference to another question in the OP, Ned choked on King Bobby's meat horse, he may have disagreed with the decision depending on the situation but he certainly would have beheaded Theon.  His insolence with the Dany assassination was a different circumstance.

[thranta flyer]

1 hour ago, St Daga said:

Maybe, maybe not. I don't expect to change anyone's mind. Elbert Arryn is interesting however. His father Ronnel was Jon Arryn's brother, but Ronnel died and Elbert was left as Jon's heir. So, when Aerys summoned the men responsible for these men who rode with Brandon to Kings Landing, why was Jon Arryn not summoned? 

 

I wonder if Elbert was not summoned to KL with Brandon.  It may just have been that he happened to be visiting Brandon/Winterfell; the boys were close in age and would have known each other because their houses were close.  He may have gone with Brandon because he was going to be heading back to the Vale from Winterfell anyways, so why not go along.  As a young man that knew he was heir, he may also have decided to go along to show that the Vale would stand behind their friends at Winterfell, effectively making a political statement and declaring the Vale will side with Winterfell.

Aerys may have had one possible reason to call directly for Ned's head and not Benjen's.  Benjen would have only been 14/15 when his brother and father were murdered; he wasn't yet of age AND Aerys really had no way to forcibly pull Benjen out of Winterfell and take his head because the North would immediately fortify the Neck.

For some reason, unbeknownst to us, Aerys II thought that Jon Arryn might actually yield up the heads of Ned who was of age and suddenly the head of House Stark and Robert.  It makes sense for Aerys to call for Ned's head as a test of Jon Arryn's loyalty to the crown.

I'm not sure what possible reason Aerys could have for Robert's head aside from Aerys has some notion that Storm's End was part of the plot against him, either from paranoia or proof--at that point it didn't really matter because Aerys seemed to believe what he wanted to believe.

I was reading back through the reign of King Aerys II and ran across the fact that he and Steffon Baratheon were good friends as kids just like Aerys and Tywin were good friends.  We know that Tywin and Aerys had a falling out of some sort, and I'm wondering if part of Aerys paranoia was that his friend Steffon who was plotting against him with Tywin.  If we go back to Elbert being present in KL with Brandon and Rickard and Aerys perceived that as a threat from the Vale, Aerys may have thought that Robert was tainted against him because of Robert's allegiance with Winterfell and the Vale.

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

18 minutes ago, thranta flyer said:

For some reason, unbeknownst to us, Aerys II thought that Jon Arryn might actually yield up the heads of Ned who was of age and suddenly the head of House Stark and Robert. 

Again: "Mad King Aerys".

[cpg2016]

22 hours ago, thranta flyer said:

We forgot to mention one really important set of wards that double as hostages.  Dany takes the kids from the noble families in Meereen and fosters them with the help of Barriston who agonizes over whether he could actually kill those kids or not, if it came to that.

No, those kids are explicitly hostages.  Dany just comes to like them (because they are innocent) and doesn't want to kill them.

Ned is explicitly a voluntary ward and not a hostage,  This is the whole point of the Southron Ambitions theory.  Foster kids are considered kin; this is a way to bring the Arryns into the fold, as now Ned and Robert have ties of family back to the Vale.

[Foot_Of_The_King]

On 7/4/2017 at 5:40 AM, St Daga said:

Off the top of my head, I know that Catelyn mention's this when she agree's to take Big and Little Walder as wards. "A ward can easily become a hostage, if need be." ACOK-Catelyn V. I think it comes up other times, as well. 

Thanks for adding a quote to my general idea 

[PrinceHenryris]

I was always under the impression that Quentyn Martell was sent to Yronwood because of the duel between Oberyn and the previous Lord Yronwood.

As for Ned, he was almost certainly not a hostage, and if he was it would not have been at Aerys' request.  Hardly anybody South of the Neck gave a damn about what happened in the North.

My own guess would be that Rickard thought it would be a good idea to foster his second son with the Lord of the Vale.  Even if we discount Rickard's "Southern Ambitions", it wouldn't hurt Ned's potential prospects.  

What if Ned caught the eye of some Lord who didn't have a son?   Suddenly, he goes from a second son holding a keep for his brother to, for all intents and purposes, a Lord in his own right in the Vale.

Alternatively, he could have found another match in the Vale and brought his wife and a fat Dowry back home.

Even if Ned didn't find a bride, it doesn't hurt to let your son make friends with two Lords Paramount as well as other houses in the Vale.

I also wonder if there was something else going on between the Vale and the North at that time as Domeric Bolton was fostered with the Redforts.  I highly doubt that Roose would have sent his son and heir anywhere as a hostage.

[cpg2016]

9 hours ago, PrinceHenryris said:

I also wonder if there was something else going on between the Vale and the North at that time as Domeric Bolton was fostered with the Redforts.  I highly doubt that Roose would have sent his son and heir anywhere as a hostage.

It's interesting, because I never noticed this until now, but Domeric Bolton wasn't fostered at the Redfort - he was a squire.  Which is probably an error on GRRMs part, but there is a strong implication that squires are training to be knights, a social position which doesn't exist in the North (outside of White Harbor, really).  Whereas Ned was specifically a fostering.  I think the idea is that foster kids are actually part of the family, and are considered as such, while squires are more temporary and are there to serve a function and learn something specific.

I don't know if there is anything to that, but it's weird that Bolton is training his kid to be a knight.  Maybe as a larger part of a general Northern desire to assimilate into the kingdom, led by Rickard but also imposed on his vassals?

[Luddagain]

In medieval England (where this story is more or less set), warding or fostering was the common practice for noble lads and was seen as an honour by more junior nobility and a wise safety precaution by other lords. By scattering sons to different Lords they were given protection as well as military education and training. In many cases they learnt to read which might not be possible in smaller holdings. The bonds of friendship were forged between boys raised together and presumably many a marriage was also formed as wise parents could check out which of the likely lads was best for their daughters.

Boys usually left home at the age of 7, becoming a page in a great household and then at 14 became squires and at 21 Knights. However by the later middle ages the sons of Kings seemed to become squires and then knights much, much earlier.

Wardships were in fact valuable property and were awarded to nobles by the king as spoils of war or special favours. I think that they had use of the assets and revenue from the ward's estate until the boy/girl was 21 - the age of majority. Most (but not all) wards wee treated well by their guardians.

However there was a very fine line between being a ward and being a hostage. Probably the most famous were the many Scottish Kings held hostage for most of their lives but also the famous Henry V who was "fostered" by his cousin Richard II while his father was exiled. When his father did rebel he was in a very precarious position and it is probable that he never forgave his father for  risking his life. (according to the novelists his father favoured his younger brother). Luckily for Henry, Richard II was fond of him (perhaps rather too fond in a Michael Jackson sort of way) and did not execute him. Richard was overthrown by Henry's daddy and died mysteriously in custody - probably with a fate akin to poor Donella Hornwood.

 

Back to GoT

 

I suspect that Rickard (and perhaps his father too) had rebellion in the back of their minds and this was probably one reason for sending young Ned to the Eyrie - what safer place- and probably Steffon Baratheon thought the same. Where to place your possibly favourite (or most valuable) sons, safe from devious plans of the mad king and/or Tywin Lannister.

[SFDanny]

On 7/4/2017 at 6:22 AM, Consigliere said:

It's alot more than a mere argument against. It kills the theory completely.

It does indeed. I would only add a few things. Elbert's inclusion in Brandon's party may well show a foster father relationship as well as the one we know of with Ned and Jon Arryn. Stefan Stasse over at the Tower of the Hand, I believe, is the first to suggest this and I think there is a good case that can be made for this being true. Elbert is fostered, the theory goes, in the North with Brandon as his foster brother much as Ned and Robert are with Jon Arryn. This is likely a trading of Ned for Elbert between the Vale and the North. No hostages involved.

[cpg2016]

21 hours ago, Luddagain said:

I suspect that Rickard (and perhaps his father too) had rebellion in the back of their minds and this was probably one reason for sending young Ned to the Eyrie - what safer place- and probably Steffon Baratheon thought the same. Where to place your possibly favourite (or most valuable) sons, safe from devious plans of the mad king and/or Tywin Lannister.

I think it more likely that Rickard was concerned by the obvious madness of Aerys II, and the fact that several of his predecessors had been also actively infringing on the traditional rights of the nobility (notably Aegon IV and Aegon V), so it was a kind of pattern.  Not to mention, the kings Bloodraven served under basically left the realm to itself, which is why the Westerlands and North have to deal with Dagon's reaving without royal help, as they were focused on the Blackfyres.

In other words, if I'm Rickard Stark, I see a long, fairly consistent history of the throne abandoning it's feudal duties and obligations; first by acting in a tyrannical manner (Aegon IV), then by refusing to protect it's vassal lords from predation (Daeron II), then by restricting the rights of the nobility (Aegon V) and then Aerys' madness.

We can be pretty sure he is reacting to Aerys' tyranny, rather than actively plotting his downfall, because his heir Brandon is fostered out in a very traditional way, to a Stark vassal.  But by the time Aerys' madness is apparent, Ned is sent to Jon Arryn.  The timing makes sense.  Brandon is born in 262, and therefore is probably fostered out around 270ish... maybe a couple years in either direction (Ned fosters out at 8).  It is mentioned that Aerys was already beginning to slide into madness in the early 270s; this is when he's insulting Tywin and beginning to surround himself with lickspittles, which is just around when Ned would have been sent to the Vale.

Steffon wouldn't have thought this way - he was a friend of Aerys and was apparently actually trusted by him.

My thinking is that the Southron Ambitions coalition was meant to protect against royal overreach, in other words, to protect against exactly what ended up happening.