If not Jon who?

[Julia H.]

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Yeah there was nothing. Even though that's clearly what Ned would be reported of doing given time, Robb would still react the same way.

But that's talking about what Robb would do if... I'd rather not judge characters based on what they would do if things were different.

Quote

No personal ties? Pretty sure there have been marriages crafted between houses throughout the realm from all provinces.  

Like a Dornish Umber cousin? A Karstark niece in the Westerlands? A Bolton brother-in-law in King's Landing? I haven't heard about them, but if they exist, they don't seem to matter much to Northerners. 

Quote

The Karstarks who are seen as the being the closet to the Stark or their uncles Edmure or Blackfish could lead the uprising. I mean if Catelyn and Robb had already come to KL it really shows they're willingly to submit. 

Or the Northerners could have started a fight between themselves for leadership. At least the Lannisters could always hope for that. Divide et impera.

Ned also showed he was willing to submit, for all the good it did to him.

Quote

To torture a man of Ned's status(even if traitor), would be seen as extremely unusual. And there really doesn't need to be trial if the king catches a lord having committed treason against his liege lord. 

Like, Ned didn't need to really give the deserter a trial where everyone including a representives of the NW to attend to see Ned's judgement was just.

This is feudalism. The execution of a Lord Paramount even by the King is totally different from the execution of a commoner by a Lord Paramount. With no dragons to rely on, the King needs the support of his lords. In exchange, the lords have certain rights, which commoners don't have. Torture in Ned's status may seem unusual perhaps, but execution is also unusual. Anyway, Ned's father and brother had also been tortured by a king before they died. Besides, torture is not the only thing, there is also threat (which was indeed used against Ned). 

Quote

He doesn't really know that. Nor would that really effect his drive to win or die trying.

But at least we know that Robb's instincts were probably right in this case. Ned is often blamed for being too naive and credulous. If anything, Robb should have been even more (not less) suspicious of people's  intentions.  

Quote

 

So any offer of mercy should be given great consideration given Tywin's reputation of never offering it to his opposition. Joffery(though terrible) only really gave back to what Robb gave. Catelyn I don't remember any sort of interaction between Joffery outside the greeting they had when Robert came. Or Catelyn really. Could be totally wrong if so please correct me.

Did Tywin really offer "mercy"? Correct me if I'm wrong but I think it was just Joff and Cersei demanding homage.

As for what sort of opinion Cat and Robb may have formed of Cersei and Joffrey:

1. Cersei had been a guest in Winterfell. From what we saw, she didn't make an effort to be gracious and kind to the hosts.

2. Joffrey's interaction with Robb in Winterfell was simply hostile (the sword practice in the yard). We didn't see many interactions between them, but it doesn't mean that was the only one. Since it's literature, we can suppose that the author shows us what is typical, what we are supposed to base our opinion on, not an accidental and untypical misunderstanding. The same goes for Cersei's behaviour in Winterfell. 

3. Ned didn't want to betroth Sansa to Joffrey because of Joffrey's character, as he observed it during the Winterfell visit. He shared these concerns with Catelyn. In retrospect, Catelyn thinks that Ned was right all through that conversation and she should have listened to him. 

4. The incident by the Trident. Arya ran away and Cersei sent soldiers after her (a nine-year-old girl). Ned sent his own men and wanted them to find her before the royal soldiers did. He was obviously worried that something bad might happen to Arya at the Queen's orders. During the "trial" either Arya or Joffrey lied. I think Ned knew which of them was the liar. When Cersei found out that the direwolf that had bitten her son couldn't be found, she insisted on having the other wolf killed. That suggests that Cersei's drive for revenge went beyond justice. It is probably a character trait, not an isolated incident. When Lady's bones were sent back to the North, Ned probably sent a letter, too, in which he explained what had happened, so Robb knew the details. 

5. They read Sansa's letter to them, dictated by Cersei. Catelyn realized that Sansa had been forced to write it. Not exactly a friendly and reassuring gesture.  

6. Ned had been distrustful of the Lannisters even before Robert's visit to Winterfell, mainly due to Tywin 's actions during Robert's Rebellion, if I remember correctly. He made no secret of this in front of Catelyn, although he also said he didn't mind having to tolerate the Lannisters for Robert's sake.    

7. During the royal visit to Winterfell, Bran suffered a suspicious accident, then was almost killed with a rare and expensive weapon. That's kind of difficult to forget. 

8. Ned was famous for being just and honourable. For those who knew him and loved him, it was obviously difficult to believe that he had done anything dishonest. His executioners, on the other hand, had already shown that they were arrogant, unjust, cruel and not trustworthy at all.     

[Shi Qiang]

Let's examine what just happened.  Robb trusted Theon => Theon betrays Robb => Bran and Rickon are killed => Robb fell in love with Jeyne => Robb breaks his sworn oath to Walder Frey

Robb was in love with Jeyne Westerling.  It is reasonable to assume that they planned on having children.  So why would Robb will the north to his bastard brother?  Doing so would permanently pass the line of inheritance to Jon and his future heirs.  Why would Robb do something to disinherit his future children?  I just don't think he would do that. 

Sure he trusts Jon but you would think Robb learned his lesson from Theon.  Did he dare trust Jon to support his own children's inheritance?  I just don't think Robb would take that chance.   His best choice is to will his land to someone who will later support his own children's inheritance.  His mother.  Catelyn Stark.  This is the only logical choice unless you want to argue that Robb wanted to disinherit his future children. 

Naming Jon is fraught with so many problems.  Number 1, will the NW recognize his kingship and pardon Jon's breaking his vows.  That is a violation of NW practice of neutrality.  They should not even recognize his kingship.  Number 2, Jon is a bastard that will have to be made legit.  Number 3, Robb will disinherit his future children. 

[Tagganaro]

34 minutes ago, Allardyce said:

Let's examine what just happened.  Robb trusted Theon => Theon betrays Robb => Bran and Rickon are killed => Robb fell in love with Jeyne => Robb breaks his sworn oath to Walder Frey

Robb was in love with Jeyne Westerling.  It is reasonable to assume that they planned on having children.  So why would Robb will the north to his bastard brother?  Doing so would permanently pass the line of inheritance to Jon and his future heirs.  Why would Robb do something to disinherit his future children?  I just don't think he would do that. 

Sure he trusts Jon but you would think Robb learned his lesson from Theon.  Did he dare trust Jon to support his own children's inheritance?  I just don't think Robb would take that chance.   His best choice is to will his land to someone who will later support his own children's inheritance.  His mother.  Catelyn Stark.  This is the only logical choice unless you want to argue that Robb wanted to disinherit his future children. 

Naming Jon is fraught with so many problems.  Number 1, will the NW recognize his kingship and pardon Jon's breaking his vows.  That is a violation of NW practice of neutrality.  They should not even recognize his kingship.  Number 2, Jon is a bastard that will have to be made legit.  Number 3, Robb will disinherit his future children. 

The will is written before any chance of Jeyne becoming pregnant. Robb mentions this concern- that he and Jeyne have been trying to make him an heir but that he's not certain it's working, and that he needs an heir should he die in his next battle.  I think the Will may even be contingent on Robb having no child in order to be effective.  

Catelyn mentions the concerns re: Theon and Jon to Robb.  Robb angrily dismisses them, and even Grey Wind gets angry when Catelyn suggests that Jon and Theon could be similar threats/betrayals.  "That is as cruel as it is unfair.  Jon is no Theon." That's what Robb replies to Catelyn.

As Robb also considers, there is precedent for King's legitimizing bastards.  Stannis is willing to do the same exact thing for Jon based on precent.  So Number 1, the NW would probably recognize his kingship and there is no breaking of vows- Robb is even willing to send 100 men to the NW to replace Jon.  Number 2, Robb's will/decree makes him legit. 3, Robb's will is contingent on him dying without children- he explicitly mentions this.

[Julia H.]

1 hour ago, Allardyce said:

Robb will disinherit his future children. 

Why would he do that? 

48 minutes ago, Tagganaro said:

3, Robb's will is contingent on him dying without children- he explicitly mentions this.

This. Robb is concerned about succession because Jeyne is not pregnant yet, and he is planning to go to battle soon again. He has no reason to disinherit any future child of his, and the will is not a one-word document. It probably explains what should happen if he leaves behind a small child (or children) when he dies and what should happen if he dies childless. The main purpose of the will is to make sure he has an heir even while he doesn't have a child, but there are probably clauses on who should bring up his future child if he dies early and who should be the Lord Protector while his heir is underage, etc. 

As for Robb still trusting Jon after the betrayal by Theon, yes, he specifically states that he has absolute faith in Jon despite what Theon did. 

[Moiraine Sedai]

On 12/30/2017 at 4:35 PM, The Sunland Lord said:

Not much more acceptable at the moment. King Robb executed Rickard for treason. He knew he couldn't go there.

Besides, Karstarks are distant relatives to Starks. Jon is more acceptable, and while I agree it has quite some obstacles, he will become a King in the North.

 

I sincerely hope not.  Haha.  

 

 

[divica]

1 minute ago, Moiraine Sedai said:

I sincerely hope not.  Haha.  

 

 

You might be right. As robb's heir he should be king of the north and riverlands?

lol

[Moiraine Sedai]

1 minute ago, divica said:

You might be right. As robb's heir he should be king of the north and riverlands?

lol

Grrrrrrr 

stabs Jon again for good measure

and makes a glove lining out of Ghost

 

 

[Varysblackfyre321]

On January 5, 2018 at 4:04 AM, Julia H. said:

Like a Dornish Umber cousin? A Karstark niece in the Westerlands? A Bolton brother-in-law in King's Landing? I haven't heard about them, but if they exist, they don't seem to matter much to Northerners. 

Like a distant cousin, or great-grandmother. There are connections through blood. And no, the northern nobility don't care much about them true.

On January 5, 2018 at 4:04 AM, Julia H. said:

Or the Northerners could have started a fight between themselves for leadership. At least the Lannisters could always hope for that. Divide et impera.

And that would achieve what? Robb and Catelyn gave submitted. The Laninsters win. The entire north would be at their mercy anyway. Prolonging the bloodshed being spilt in the north ultimately would cost the crown given their northern province won't pay tribute to them.

 

On January 5, 2018 at 4:04 AM, Julia H. said:

This is feudalism. The execution of a Lord Paramount even by the King is totally different from the execution of a commoner by a Lord Paramount. With no dragons to rely on, the King needs the support of his lords. In exchange, the lords have certain rights, which commoners don't have

Still doesn't mean the king must wait for the main powers of the north to come all the way over to KL before he commences deliberations on whether or not Ned is guilty.

On January 5, 2018 at 4:04 AM, Julia H. said:

Torture in Ned's status may seem unusual perhaps, but execution is also unusual. Anyway, Ned's father and brother had also been tortured by a king before they died. Besides, torture is not the only thing, there is also threat (which was indeed used against Ned). 

Quote

True enough.

 

On January 5, 2018 at 4:04 AM, Julia H. said:

Cersei had been a guest in Winterfell. From what we saw, she didn't make an effort to be gracious and kind to the hosts.

She wasn't super affable true, but neither particularly rude. 

 

On January 5, 2018 at 4:04 AM, Julia H. said:

2. Joffrey's interaction with Robb in Winterfell was simply hostile (the sword practice in the yard). We didn't see many interactions between them, but it doesn't mean that was the only one

It's boys being boys. They're both being competitive and trying to prove the othe other is lesser than them.  There were probably more interactions and if similar chest pumping. 

 

On January 5, 2018 at 4:04 AM, Julia H. said:

by the Trident. Arya ran away and Cersei sent soldiers after her (a nine-year-old girl). Ned sent his own men and wanted them to find her before the royal soldiers did. He was obviously worried that something bad might happen to Arya at the Queen's orders. During the "trial" either Arya or Joffrey lied. I think Ned knew which of them was the liar. When Cersei found out that the direwolf that had bitten her son couldn't be found, she insisted on having the other wolf killed. That suggests that Cersei's drive for revenge went beyond justice. It is probably a character trait, not an isolated incident. When Lady's bones were sent back to the North, Ned probably sent a letter, too, in which he explained what had happened, so Robb knew the details. 

5. They read Sansa's letter to them, dictated by Cersei. Catelyn realized that Sansa had been forced to write it. Not exactly a friendly and reassuring gesture.  

4. Would definitely spoil any trace of not-hatred Robb would have of Joffery.

5. Meh, true.

I'm sorry I had thought you were talking about actual meeting between the two. 

Obviously just taking Ned's head in general would make them extremely wary of dealing with them.

[Julia H.]

21 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

1. And that would achieve what? Robb and Catelyn gave submitted. The Laninsters win. The entire north would be at their mercy anyway. Prolonging the bloodshed being spilt in the north ultimately would cost the crown given their northern province won't pay tribute to them.

2. Still doesn't mean the king must wait for the main powers of the north to come all the way over to KL before he commences deliberations on whether or not Ned is guilty.

3. I'm sorry I had thought you were talking about actual meeting between the two. 

Obviously just taking Ned's head in general would make them extremely wary of dealing with them.

1. You seemed to be suggesting that (a hypothetical scenario) after Robb and Catelyn were executed by Joffrey (having bent the knee), there was still time enough for the North to rebel. My reply was that it would leave House Stark with a kid (and a "cripple") as head, and even if the Northern lords would rebel in his name, there could easily be internal fights (or at least rivalry) between them for leadership, which would be good for their opponents (the Lannisters). This whole hypothetical scenario is based on the possibility that Joffrey and Cersei might want to eliminate the whole Stark family. Robb and Cat could not know that this was not their intention after killing Eddard. (Would the Lannisters mind a little more bloodshed, especially in Stark territory, in exchange for what they want? Come on....) After the deaths of Robb and Cat, House Stark would stand no chance against the IT - even if the Northern lords wanted to rebel, they would be much weaker without a generally accepted leader. This was (beyond their own lives) what Robb and Catelyn would have risked if they had gone to King's Landing to bend the knee.  

Of course, the Lannisters might have left them alive, but the risk was there, and a pretty high risk to take, too. We also know that with Cersei and Joffrey making decisions, rational considerations do not usually play a part. The possibility of a bit of bloodshed in the North certainly would not make Joffrey think twice. Joffrey might have wanted to kill the Starks (even without the rebellion) simply because he enjoyed being so powerful, because he had quarrelled with Robb back in Winterfell, because Sansa still wasn't broken enough, and Cersei could have wanted to do it because what if Ned had shared his discovery about the twincest with them? We can't tell what their intention was when calling all their opposition to King's Landing to bend the knee, but those who were invited had to take all possibilities into consideration. The Starks weren't the only ones to "refuse the call" to bend the knee: Neither Renly, nor Stannis hurried to do it. In fact, Stannis had stayed away from King's Landing for months already before Robert's death, and he was no fool. Apparently, no one who has a quarrel with the Lannisters thinks it's worth experimenting with the chance that they just might be merciful.

2. Well, must is a strong word, but I would say it is probably wise to ensure some support before making such a decision, (and no, not just the support of the goldcloaks), especially when everyone knows that high-ranking convicts are customarily sent to the Wall, instead of being executed. In theory, a king is allowed to do anything that he can do. However, the actions of a king still have consequences, and unpleasant consequnces are also possible. Therefore even a king should think about the possible consequences of his actions. Unfortunately, Joffrey is too stupid and too egotistic to see that. .

3. The actual meeting set a certain tone, but there were plenty of other sources of information to help the Starks form an opinion about the Lannisters and to decide whether they could trust them. Ned's death (and the attacks on the Riverlands), of course, crowned it all. The importance of the general evidence of Joffrey's character and Cersei's character lies in the fact that - when it is compared with what the Starks know about Ned's character - even in the absence of any concrete proof of Ned's guilt or innocence, it strongly suggests that Ned's execution was not a simple act of real and honest royal justice. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

3 hours ago, Julia H. said:

1. You seemed to be suggesting that (a hypothetical scenario) after Robb and Catelyn were executed by Joffrey (having bent the knee), there was still time enough for the North to rebel. My reply was that it would leave House Stark with a kid (and a "cripple") as head, and even if the Northern lords would rebel in his name, there could easily be internal fights (or at least rivalry) between them for leadership, which would be good for their opponents (the Lannisters

They would rebel  for them because they are Starks no? There may be some internal fighting/rivalry but who'd obviously have guardianship of these boys would have the monopoly to claim the right to actually lead the rebellion for no one could deny the boys legitimacy.

No one could have a better claim for who should be king than a pure Stark,

I mean the whole reason for Robb naming Jon his heir was because bran and Rickon were thought to be dead-if he had any fear of his bannermen(who he was terrified of), would kill off or try to usurp his brothers if he died in battle.

But, if he kneels, he's no longer the young wolf, but simply a scared boy who knelt to his father's murderers. It'd immensely hard for him to ever garner the necessary support  and opportunity to do what he did again.

 

3 hours ago, Julia H. said:

course, the Lannisters might have left them alive, but the risk was there, and a pretty high risk to take, too.

There's always a risk true, though I count this one not as likely as you do.

 

3 hours ago, Julia H. said:

We also know that with Cersei and Joffrey making decisions, rational considerations do not usually play a part.

Can we keep this firmly on what the charachters know?

 

4 hours ago, Julia H. said:

This whole hypothetical scenario is based on the possibility that Joffrey and Cersei might want to eliminate the whole Stark family.

I thought we were  examining whether there is any likelyhood of Catelyn and Robb being imprisoned after they bent the knee? 

 

4 hours ago, Julia H. said:

The Starks weren't the only ones to "refuse the call" to bend the knee: Neither Renly, nor Stannis hurried to do it. In fact, Stannis had stayed away from King's Landing for months already before Robert's death, and he was no fool. Apparently, no one who has a quarrel with the Lannisters thinks it's worth experimenting with the chance that they just might be merciful

Possibly because Renly was found to have Cerdi pushed aside in favor Margary so he was trying to save his ass and/or curry more power.

Stannis's would come to KL to bend the knee to an abomination such as Joffery, nor would he be stupid enough to think after saying no and giving his reason would he be allowed to live.

4 hours ago, Julia H. said:

2. Well, must is a strong word, but I would say it is probably wise to ensure some support before making such a decision, (and no, not just the support of the goldcloaks), especially when everyone knows that high-ranking convicts are customarily sent to the Wall, instead of being executed. In theory, a king is allowed to do anything that he can do. However, the actions of a king still have consequences, and unpleasant consequnces are also possible. Therefore even a king should think about the possible consequences of his actions. Unfortunately, Joffrey is too stupid and too egotistic to see that. .

 Still, Joffery was within his rights to execute a man who brazenly tried to usurp his throne. From his POV. Was is it wise? Nope.

 

4 hours ago, Julia H. said:

3. The actual meeting set a certain tone, but there were plenty of other sources of information to help the Starks form an opinion about the Lannisters and to decide whether they could trust them. Ned's death (and the attacks on the Riverlands), of course, crowned it all. The importance of the general evidence of Joffrey's character and Cersei's character lies in the fact that - when it is compared with what the Starks know about Ned's character - even in the absence of any concrete proof of Ned's guilt or innocence, it strongly suggests that Ned's execution was not a simple act of real and honest royal justice. 

Yes, obviously, they're going to believe their beloved patriarch was wrongfully killed. They know him he couldn't have committed this crime. No matter the evidence they'd maintane his innocence because they know Ned.

Also through this entire discussion we neglected addressing one lanister-Tyrion. Who when Hand could insure they're safety and who they could trust due to his past dealing with them.

[Julia H.]

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

1. They would rebel  for them because they are Starks no? There may be some internal fighting/rivalry but who'd obviously have guardianship of these boys would have the monopoly to claim the right to actually lead the rebellion for no one could deny the boys legitimacy.

No one could have a better claim for who should be king than a pure Stark,

2. I mean the whole reason for Robb naming Jon his heir was because bran and Rickon were thought to be dead-if he had any fear of his bannermen(who he was terrified of), would kill off or try to usurp his brothers if he died in battle.

But, if he kneels, he's no longer the young wolf, but simply a scared boy who knelt to his father's murderers. It'd immensely hard for him to ever garner the necessary support  and opportunity to do what he did again.

 

3. There's always a risk true, though I count this one not as likely as you do.

 

4. Can we keep this firmly on what the charachters know?

 

5. I thought we were  examining whether there is any likelyhood of Catelyn and Robb being imprisoned after they bent the knee? 

 6. Still, Joffery was within his rights to execute a man who brazenly tried to usurp his throne. From his POV. Was is it wise? Nope.

 

7. Yes, obviously, they're going to believe their beloved patriarch was wrongfully killed. They know him he couldn't have committed this crime. No matter the evidence they'd maintane his innocence because they know Ned.

8. Also through this entire discussion we neglected addressing one lanister-Tyrion. Who when Hand could insure they're safety and who they could trust due to his past dealing with them.

1. In case of a war, any internal fight / rivalry or lack of definite leadership favours the enemy. That's what I'm trying to say here. 

2. Sorry, I don't understand what you mean here.

3. The question is how likely Cat and Robb would consider this scenario. Besides, how likely should it be for them to avoid this situation? Would a 30% likelihood of ending up dead prevent you from going to a certain place? After all, you have a 70 % chance of staying alive. The problem is, when death does occur, it is always 100% death, even if originally the chance was only 50% or 30%.

4. I suppose I have a right to mention why I consider it likely that they made the right decision. If you don't think so, we can stop this conversation. Besides, even if the Starks didn't know about the major mistakes Cersei and Joffrey were going to make, they had spent several weeks together and had an impression of each other's personalities. Stupidity, vanity, lack of tact and utter selfishness are not so difficult to identify. In additon, whoever tried to kill Bran, it was apparent that the person made rash decisions, and didn't think carefully of long-term consequences. But even before Robert's visit to Winterfell, this is Cersei's reputation there: "her pride is said to grow with every year" (Catelyn). Apparently she had some prior information about Cersei. About her pride, not abut her wisdom. 

5. I was examining the situation where they are killed right away (either violently or with poison, like Jon Arryn). But imprisonment wouldn't be good for the Starks either, and that would also leave the North without a ruler.

6. That's what I'm saying. Legally, he may have been within his rights, for all the good it did to him. Morally, that's another question. If the law allows you to do things that are unjustifiable from a moral viewpoint, the law is probably wrong, and you should think twice before exercising this right. Joffrey thought absolute power was good for him, but it wasn't, as both Tyrion and Tywin realised.

7. There is no evidence though. All in all, there is no reason for the Starks to trust the IT any longer. Even if Joffrey were suddenly full of good intentions towards the surviving Starks, when trust is lost in such a brutal way, it is lost forever. 

8. By the time Tyrion becomes Hand, there have been several battles between the Starks and the Lannisters, and it is open war. Making peace at this point is a complicated issue. I don't recall if Tyrion planned to use his power to make peace, but he was only a replacement and only while Tywin was out of town anyway, and formally both Cersei and Joffrey were above him in rank. Another problem is that I don't think his past dealings with the Starks inspired any trust between them. He had been Catelyn's captive, after all, and before that, Robb (and the direwolves) had been openly hostile to him due to the attempt on Bran's life and Lysa's insinuations about Jon Arryn's death. It is true that Tyrion had given them advice on how to make a special saddle for Bran, and he had even saved Catelyn's life in the mountains, but there was still a lot of suspicion attached to him. The Starks may have realized eventually that he was a better person than Cersei or Joffrey, but he was still very definitely on the Lannister side in the conflict, and when he married Sansa, it was clear that he was taking part in the attempt to acquire Winterfell for House Lannister.  

[Varysblackfyre321]

On January 9, 2018 at 2:26 PM, Julia H. said:

1. In case of a war, any internal fight / rivalry or lack of definite leadership favours the enemy. That's what I'm trying to say here. 

 

But there would be definite leadership; those who held guardianship over the boys would act so in their sted. No one is going to make claim for they should be king while two living breathing Stark males are around.  Cripple or toddler be damned. 

 

On January 9, 2018 at 2:26 PM, Julia H. said:

2. Sorry, I don't understand what you mean here.

 That even Robb doesn't think if he had died with Rickon and Bran alive the north secesion movement would break down due to people putting forth they deserve to be king and if Robb knelt would lose any respect he'd need to start a rebellion again. 

 

On January 9, 2018 at 2:26 PM, Julia H. said:

y Cat and Robb would consider this scenario. Besides, how likely should it be for them to avoid this situation? Would a 30% likelihood of ending up dead prevent you from going to a certain place? After all, you have a 70 % chance of staying alive. The problem is, when death does occur, it is always 100% death, even if originally the chance was only 50% or 30%.

The odds of Robb having died in battle and the north losing were much greater.

 

On January 9, 2018 at 2:26 PM, Julia H. said:

4. I suppose I have a right to mention why I consider it likely that they made the right decision.

You do. But in this discussion, we're discussing if Robb was wise to elected not to have knelt. Based off his information we should examine he had good reason for making his decision. Pointing towards the twincest and Cersi possibly wanting to exterminate anyone who possibly has knowledge of it wouldn't factor in Robb's decision making because he didn't know about it. Like there are plenty of charachters who based on their current info made the "right" decision. For ex RRenly based on his current info was right not to kneel to Stannis not knowing Stannis had a shadow demon.

 

On January 9, 2018 at 2:26 PM, Julia H. said:

Besides, even if the Starks didn't know about the major mistakes Cersei and Joffrey were going to make, they had spent several weeks together and had an impression of each other's personalities. Stupidity, vanity, lack of tact and utter selfishness are not so difficult to identify. In additon, whoever tried to kill Bran, it was apparent that the person made rash decisions, and didn't think carefully of long-term consequences. But even before Robert's visit to Winterfell, this is Cersei's reputation there: "her pride is said to grow with every year" (Catelyn). Apparently she had some prior information about Cersei. About her pride, not abut her wisdom. 

They'd be eise to be on alert when dealing with them.

 

On January 9, 2018 at 2:26 PM, Julia H. said:

6. That's what I'm saying. Legally, he may have been within his rights, for all the good it did to him. Morally, that's another question. If the law allows you to do things that are unjustifiable from a moral viewpoint, the law is probably wrong, and you should think twice before exercising this right. Joffrey thought absolute power was good for him, but it wasn't, as both Tyrion and Tywin realise

The law of treason being a capital offense is not wrong. My point wasn't that Joffery was wise in his executeing. Just that it was well-within in his rights and the Starks wouldn't have cared.

 

On January 9, 2018 at 2:26 PM, Julia H. said:

7. There is no evidence though. All in all, there is no reason for the Starks to trust the IT any longer. Even if Joffrey were suddenly full of good intentions towards the surviving Starks, when trust is lost in such a brutal way, it is lost forever.

There's a cofession for Ned's treason.  True, the Starks are going to be distrustful towards the lanisters as is wise.

 

On January 9, 2018 at 2:26 PM, Julia H. said:

8. By the time Tyrion becomes Hand, there have been several battles between the Starks and the Lannisters, and it is open war. Making peace at this point is a complicated issue. I don't recall if Tyrion planned to use his power to make peace, but he was only a replacement and only while Tywin was out of town anyway, and formally both Cersei and Joffrey were above him in rank.

Not really complicated. Robb bends the knee peace the NSM goes caput. And the hand of the king has more power than Queen regent at least

 

On January 9, 2018 at 2:26 PM, Julia H. said:

nother problem is that I don't think his past dealings with the Starks inspired any trust between them. He had been Catelyn's captive, after all, and before that, Robb (and the direwolves) had been openly hostile to him due to the attempt on Bran's life and Lysa's insinuations about Jon Arryn's death.

While captive as you point out saved Catelyn's life, Robb's pet had shown a little aggression when Tyrion but that proved unfounded, Lysha has been shown to cat to be utterly bonkers. 

 It is true that Tyrion had given them advice on how to make a special saddle for Bran, and he had even saved Catelyn's life in the mountains, but there was still a lot of suspicion attached to him.

  

MYou seem to be downplaying what Tyrion did. I mean he went out of his way to come to WF just to give the Syarks the knowledge they need to make what has been a very difficult  situation(being crippled), a lot easier to reconcile with. And he basiclly asked for nothing in exchange, and almost any other man in his situation would be thought to have not even tried to save his captor.

On January 9, 2018 at 2:26 PM, Julia H. said:

The Starks may have realized eventually that he was a better person than Cersei or Joffrey, but he was still very definitely on the Lannister side in the conflict, and when he married Sansa, it was clear that he was taking part in the attempt to acquire Winterfell for House Lannist

Catelyn at least trusted him enough to release Jamie after she had thought Bran and Rickon died. By the time he'd be married Sansa he definitely wasn't in any position to secure they're safety and the act itself would erase any trust he'd curried true. 

[Darion Storm]

Catelyn always seemed kinda irrational when it came to Jon, but I expect it’s quite common among wives whose husbands have bastards.

[Julia H.]

16 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

1. But there would be definite leadership; those who held guardianship over the boys would act so in their sted. No one is going to make claim for they should be king while two living breathing Stark males are around.  Cripple or toddler be damned. 

2. The odds of Robb having died in battle and the north losing were much greater.

 

3. You do. But in this discussion, we're discussing if Robb was wise to elected not to have knelt. Based off his information we should examine he had good reason for making his decision. Pointing towards the twincest and Cersi possibly wanting to exterminate anyone who possibly has knowledge of it wouldn't factor in Robb's decision making because he didn't know about it. Like there are plenty of charachters who based on their current info made the "right" decision. For ex RRenly based on his current info was right not to kneel to Stannis not knowing Stannis had a shadow demon.

 

4. They'd be eise to be on alert when dealing with them.

 

5. The law of treason being a capital offense is not wrong. My point wasn't that Joffery was wise in his executeing. Just that it was well-within in his rights and the Starks wouldn't have cared.

 

6. There's a cofession for Ned's treason.  True, the Starks are going to be distrustful towards the lanisters as is wise.

 

7. Not really complicated. Robb bends the knee peace the NSM goes caput. And the hand of the king has more power than Queen regent at least

 

While captive as you point out saved Catelyn's life, Robb's pet had shown a little aggression when Tyrion but that proved unfounded, Lysha has been shown to cat to be utterly bonkers. 

 It is true that Tyrion had given them advice on how to make a special saddle for Bran, and he had even saved Catelyn's life in the mountains, but there was still a lot of suspicion attached to him.

  

8. MYou seem to be downplaying what Tyrion did. I mean he went out of his way to come to WF just to give the Syarks the knowledge they need to make what has been a very difficult  situation(being crippled), a lot easier to reconcile with. And he basiclly asked for nothing in exchange, and almost any other man in his situation would be thought to have not even tried to save his captor.

9. Catelyn at least trusted him enough to release Jamie after she had thought Bran and Rickon died. By the time he'd be married Sansa he definitely wasn't in any position to secure they're safety and the act itself would erase any trust he'd curried true. 

1. I really don't know how I could make my meaning clear on this: Who would be the guardians? There could easily be rivalry over the guardianship and over who should be the de facto leader of the North while the Lord of Winterfell is a minor. When a country faces an enemy, such differences and rivalries can be vey dangerous and it is a situation the enemy may (and Tywin certainly would) exploit.

2. You think so.Robb may have thought otherwise. Or perhaps he preferred dying in the battlefield to being executed as his father had been. 

3. I completely disagree. When making a decision there are relevant facts you know and relevant facts you don't know. Sadly, the relevant facts that you don't know may very well determine whether your decision is a good one or a bad one. That's how lots of bad decisions are made. Take the Red Wedding, for example. Based on what Robb knew (Walder Frey accepted the compensation and was ready to make peace), it seemed a good idea for him to go to the Twins and be a guest at the wedding of Edmure and Roslyn. He didn't know the Freys were preparing a trap, and that unknown but relevant fact alone made his decision a very bad decision, a tragic mistake. 

4. Which is a very good reason for not going to King's Landing to bend the knee.

5. Wouldn't have cared? The Starks certainly cared when the head of the family was executed. Other major lords would have cared, too, in a simlar situation. Actually, a generation earlier, Jon Arryn hadn't thought Kign Aerys was right when demanding the heads of Ned Stark and Robert Baratheon. Such things are noticed, and family members will always care, in some families more than in others.

I don't know why you keep saying that Joffrey was within his rights to execute Ned. In theory, a king in Westeros has the right to do anything. It doesn't mean that he is right whatever he does; it doesn't mean he can't do wrong. Not to mention that in this particular case, there had been a deal made in Joffrey's name, which he should have honoured.

6. We have been through this. A confession can be extracted through torture or threat. And yes, there was plenty of good reason for the Starks to be distrustful of the Lannisters. 

7. If you say so.

8. I'm not downplaying anything. I'm merely pointing out that whatever Tyrion did, it did not result in a relationship of trust between him and the Starks. That's a fact. Besides, he was clearly on the Lannister side in the conflict, he wasn't some objective third party, and he didn't reach out to the Starks for peace. 

9. All right, so in spite of the above, at least one of the Starks tried to trust a Lannister. It didn't work out the way she wanted. End of story. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

3 hours ago, Julia H. said:

1. I really don't know how I could make my meaning clear on this: Who would be the guardians? There could easily be rivalry over the guardianship and over who should be the de facto leader of the North while the Lord of Winterfell is a minor. When a country faces an enemy, such differences and rivalries can be vey dangerous and it is a situation the enemy may (and Tywin certainly would) exploit.

The closet relatives to the boys(Blackfish, or Karstarks), and the ultimately the one who gets their hands on them first will consolidate their right to lead and once had there'd be literaly nothing else could do about it. Like surely, Robb and Catelyn would entrust them with one before heading to KL making any discussion of guardianship moot.And ultimately executing Robb or imprisoning him would make it so that not many northern lords will bend the knee in any case because they fear it is simply a trap

 

3 hours ago, Julia H. said:

2. You think so.Robb may have thought otherwise. Or perhaps he preferred dying in the battlefield to being executed as his father had been

Again, I must refer to his conversation with Catelyn just prior to the RW or really any topic of peace is broached; his reasoning for not bending the knee wasn't that he thought he'd be executed, it was entirely that he simply didn't want to kneel to his father's killers.

3 hours ago, Julia H. said:

3. I completely disagree. When making a decision there are relevant facts you know and relevant facts you don't know. Sadly, the relevant facts that you don't know may very well determine whether your decision is a good one or a bad one. That's how lots of bad decisions are made. Take the Red Wedding, for example. Based on what Robb knew (Walder Frey accepted the compensation and was ready to make peace), it seemed a good idea for him to go to the Twins and be a guest at the wedding of Edmure and Roslyn. He didn't know the Freys were preparing a trap, and that unknown but relevant fact alone made his decision a very bad decision, a tragic mistake. 

 

He made the right decision using the knowledge he had and could have at the moment. His mistake was not making sure his men were stiff and ready. He said his army would protect him yet he allowed them to be woefully unprepared.

To say a charachter was foolish to do x action when all the information says when everything says he should yet it ending badly for a charachter is unfair. To say a charachter was wise to do x action when all information says it'd idiotic is in my mind giving undue credit. 

Would you agree that Robb was foolish to have not tried to come to KL to bend the Knee when Tywin was in KL because Tywin acted mostly benighn to all the rebel houses that knelt? Of course not because wouldn't know what Tywin's intentions were. If you still don't agree on this  point I'm prepared to move on if you are.

3 hours ago, Julia H. said:

4. Which is a very good reason for not going to King's Landing to bend the knee.

Or just being sure to take certian safety precautions. Maybe kneel in more neutral territory? 

 

3 hours ago, Julia H. said:

ldn't have cared? The Starks certainly cared when the head of the family was executed. Other major lords would have cared, too, in a simlar situation. Actually, a generation earlier, Jon Arryn hadn't thought Kign Aerys was right when demanding the heads of Ned Stark and Robert Baratheon. Such things are noticed, and family members will always care, in some families more than in others.

 

Wouldn't have cared what Ned actually did is what I meant to say. Nothing in their mind would ever justify it. Like, nothing in the mind of the Karstarks could justify Robb taking Rickard Karstark's head. Such is the way of nobility. Acts against their family are always going to be unjust in their minds. Even Alys Karstark shows she's still bitter at Robb for executing her father for the murder of two children-when everyone knows that's what he did.

 

3 hours ago, Julia H. said:

I don't why you keep saying that Joffrey was within his rights to execute Ned. In theory, a king in Westeros has the right to do anything. It doesn't mean that he is right whatever he does; it doesn't mean he can't do wrong. Not to mention that in this particular case, there had been a deal made in Joffrey's name, which he should have honoured.

Did I say he was right? I said he was well-within his rights to execute someone who he (from his pov), having tried to commit treason. Like, me saying such isnt to say what he did was morally right. Joffery did not agree to the deal and he ultimately has final say regardless what everyone has advised him to do and agreed that he would do. My point was the north doesn't care. You're right. Nothing could justify it.

 

3 hours ago, Julia H. said:

We have been through this. A confession can be extracted through torture or threat. And yes, there was plenty of good reason for the Starks to be distrustful of the Lannisters. 

Yes. And, the north wouldn't care whether it was ill-gotten and a lie, entirely voluntary and honest. 

 

3 hours ago, Julia H. said:

7. If you say so.

 

Ok what am I missing? How is making peace now more complicated? I'm honestly asking here. I admit I could be vastly oversimplifying things.

8. I'm not downplaying anything. I'm merely pointing out that whatever Tyrion did, it did not result in a relationship of trust between him and the Starks. That's a fact. Besides, he was clearly on the Lannister side in the conflict, he wasn't some objective third party, and he didn't reach out to the Starks for peace. 

9. All right, so in spite of the above, at least one of the Starks tried to trust a Lannister. It didn't work out the way she wanted. End of story

 

It shows she did grow to trust him to a real extent. 

Its also worth noting his attempt to use people to smuggle Jamie out while they were supposed to be trying to reach a diplomatic solution did raise their suspicion of him. It doesn't help my point I know but this does have relavance.

[Julia H.]

8 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

1. The closet relatives to the boys(Blackfish, or Karstarks), and the ultimately the one who gets their hands on them first will consolidate their right to lead and once had there'd be literaly nothing else could do about it. Like surely, Robb and Catelyn would entrust them with one before heading to KL making any discussion of guardianship moot.And ultimately executing Robb or imprisoning him would make it so that not many northern lords will bend the knee in any case because they fear it is simply a trap

 

2. Again, I must refer to his conversation with Catelyn just prior to the RW or really any topic of peace is broached; his reasoning for not bending the knee wasn't that he thought he'd be executed, it was entirely that he simply didn't want to kneel to his father's killers.

He made the right decision using the knowledge he had and could have at the moment. His mistake was not making sure his men were stiff and ready. He said his army would protect him yet he allowed them to be woefully unprepared.

3. To say a charachter was foolish to do x action when all the information says when everything says he should yet it ending badly for a charachter is unfair. To say a charachter was wise to do x action when all information says it'd idiotic is in my mind giving undue credit. 

Would you agree that Robb was foolish to have not tried to come to KL to bend the Knee when Tywin was in KL because Tywin acted mostly benighn to all the rebel houses that knelt? Of course not because wouldn't know what Tywin's intentions were. If you still don't agree on this  point I'm prepared to move on if you are.

4. Or just being sure to take certian safety precautions. Maybe kneel in more neutral territory? 

 

5. Wouldn't have cared what Ned actually did is what I meant to say. Nothing in their mind would ever justify it. Like, nothing in the mind of the Karstarks could justify Robb taking Rickard Karstark's head. Such is the way of nobility. Acts against their family are always going to be unjust in their minds. Even Alys Karstark shows she's still bitter at Robb for executing her father for the murder of two children-when everyone knows that's what he did.

 

6. Did I say he was right? I said he was well-within his rights to execute someone who he (from his pov), having tried to commit treason. Like, me saying such isnt to say what he did was morally right. 7. Joffery did not agree to the deal and he ultimately has final say regardless what everyone has advised him to do and agreed that he would do. My point was the north doesn't care. You're right. Nothing could justify it.

 

5. Yes. And, the north wouldn't care whether it was ill-gotten and a lie, entirely voluntary and honest. 

 

8. Ok what am I missing? How is making peace now more complicated? I'm honestly asking here. I admit I could be vastly oversimplifying things.

9. It shows she did grow to trust him to a real extent. 

Its also worth noting his attempt to use people to smuggle Jamie out while they were supposed to be trying to reach a diplomatic solution did raise their suspicion of him. It doesn't help my point I know but this does have relavance.

1. When Robb actually went to war, he left Rickon and Bran and Winterfell in the care of the castellan and the maester. Hardly the right people to lead the North in case he died. Would he have arranged for a Lord Protector if he had simply gone to King's Landing to bend the knee? Why? It would indicate he considered going to King's Landing more dangerous than going to war - which would make it likely that he would sooner go to war. Logically, it doesn't make sense that Robb didn't appoint a Lord Protector when he went to war but he would have appointed one if he had merely gone to King's Landing for a short trip - unless he thought this trip was even more likely to cause his death than going to war, and in this case it would have been insane for him to go to King's Landing. If he had gone to King's Landing without arranging for a Lord Protector and died there, then the position would have been up for grabs, there would have been no obvious leader (there is rivalry between the lords anyway), and no one can tell how the situation would have played out with the Lannisters intent on killing off (or removing) all the Starks.. 

2. Sure, but this is the Robb who chose to go to war in the first place and has by now tasted victory. You said the odds that he would die in the battlefield were greater than the odds of being simply executed. That's an opinion. The conversation you have referred to doesn't mean that he agreed with your calculation and / or that he didn't prefer to take the risk of dying in battlefield whatever the odds. But I agree that he also probably preferred dying in the battlefield to bending the knee to his father's killers. That doesn't mean the other factor wasn't there. 

3. I didn't say either of those things. I'm merely saying that relevant facts you don't know about when making a decision may (help) decide whether the decision you have made is ultimately a good one or a bad one. It has nothing to do with being foolish or wise. Last time I checked we weren't discussing Robb's level of intelligence but whether it could have been better for him to go to King's Landing and bend the knee (while failing to do that automatically meant rebellion). I think the information they actually had was enough to make him and Catelyn more than a little wary about going near the Lannisters without an army, but there were also factors they didn't know about but we do, and which also make it likely that the whole "bend the knee" invitation could have been a trap. 

4. What neutral territory? Jeoffrey demanded that all and sundry go to him and bend the knee. Do you think he would have accepted the idea that they could meet in Braavos for a quick homage? What would have happened later? If a bannerman of yours does not go to your seat for fear of being imprisoned or executed and is only willing to meet you in "neutral territory" (an awfully inconvenient idea when the whole continent is your kingdom, so not "neautral"), it definitely raises certain issues. 

5. It is not only the family in this case, but the nobility of the North. You can repeat as many times as you want that they would still have been enraged at the execution if Ned had been the greatest villain in the North and if everybody had hated his guts, we don't know that it would have been so, and I'm not sure what you want to prove with this. Is it that they weren't right to be enraged at the execution of their trusted, respected and loved lord because you are sure they would have been enraged at the execution of their dishonest, hated and universally despised lord just as well? I can't follow this logic.

Regarding what you are saying about noble families never accepting that their family member was rightly punished, we have a counterexample for that right there in the North. Jeor Mormont loved his only son with all his heart, yet, he never blamed Ned for taking action against Jorah because he understood that Jorah had committed a crime. His greatest hope was that his son would return home and take the black to atone for what he had done. The Mormonts remained unwavering supporters of the Starks despite Jorah. As for Alys Karstark, sure she is bitter about her father's death, but she doesn't remember him as a perfect person without a fault, who couldn't do wrong, and she still turns to Jon for protection specifically because he is "the last living son of Eddard Stark", which shows that she still trusts the Starks after her father's execution by another son of Eddard Stark. Her example and the example of the Mormonts actually strongly indicate that family ties do not necessarily make the nobility blind to right and wrong. Therefore if the Starks and the North in general had known that King Joffrey the Just had just executed a shameless, scheming traitor, who had deserved to die, and that the just king would never hurt anyone who didn't do anything wrong, it is totally within the realms of possibility that Robb  and Catelyn would have gone to King's Landing and bent the knee, perhaps even feeling secretly grateful that a new era in the North could now start. 

6. If someone is only right from his own POV, it doesn't mean that he is right.

7. Joffrey being an underage king, I'm not sure he has the same rights as an adult king (that's why he has a regent), but let's just suppose you are correct and Joffrey indeed had the right to say no to the deal made in the name of the IT. In this case, however, he should have said no before Eddard delivered his part of the deal, i.e., before Eddard made his false confession. After accepting what Eddard had to offer as part of the deal, Joffrey lost the right to go back on the IT's part of the deal.

8. Making peace after the war has been going on for a while is probably more complicated than bending the knee before you actually go to war. In this particular case, as I earlier said, Robb was chosen King of an independent North. His mandate was to defend the independence of the North (or die trying). The Lannisters weren't ready to agree to the secession. That was just one thing that made peace-making more complicated during the war than before it. Making peace is not the same as bending the knee. 

9. I honestly don't know how they could have turned to Tyrion in private, hoping that he would be more willing to make peace on terms the North could have accepted than the other Lannisters. I mean what I don't see is how such a step could have been taken in practice, in the first place. Then, even if it had been feasible and Tyrion had been willing, would Tyrion have acted behind Tywin's back? If so, how long would such a peace last with Tywin commanding the army and Joffrey having the right - as you say - to go back on promises made by others in his name? If you are correct that Joffrey has the right to veto, at any point, every deal made by the adults on behalf of the IT, then it really doesn't matter which of his family members can be trusted.

When Catelyn released Jaime, it was meant to be a huge act of goodwill in the hope that it would be honoured and returned (by the release of the Stark girls). But it was also a very desperate action of a mother who had lost several of her children and was trying to rescue the others, and it meant voluntarily giving up their greatest asset against the Lannisters. There was very little hope that Catelyn's plan would succeed because of all the things that could go (and did go) wrong. What comes through to me is not how much Catelyn trusted Tyrion (or Jaime) but that she was grasping at straws in her desperation.   

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 hour ago, Julia H. said:

. When Robb actually went to war, he left Rickon and Bran and Winterfell in the care of the castellan and the maester. Hardly the right people to lead the North in case he died.

He goes to WF to pick them up and drop them off with someone he'd trust to competently lead the north. 

 

1 hour ago, Julia H. said:

uld he have arranged for a Lord Protector if he had simply gone to King's Landing to bend the knee? Why? It would indicate he considered going to King's Landing more dangerous than going to war - which would make it likely that he would sooner go to war

It would indicate he's some intelligence enough to take badic safety precautions. 

 

1 hour ago, Julia H. said:

Logically, it doesn't make sense that Robb didn't appoint a Lord Protector when he went to war but he would have appointed one if he had merely gone to King's Landing for a short trip - unless he thought this trip was even more likely to cause his death than going to war, and in this case it would have been insane for him to go to King's Landing.

Wait he would have not appoint a lord protector if he feared his safety in traveling to KL.

 

1 hour ago, Julia H. said:

f he had gone to King's Landing without arranging for a Lord Protector and died there, then the position would have been up for grabs, there would have been no obvious leader (there is rivalry between the lords anyway), and no one can tell how the situation would have played out with the Lannisters intent on killing off (or removing) all the Starks.. 

Which is why he'd be wise to appoint a lord protector before heading to KL.

 

1 hour ago, Julia H. said:

3. I didn't say either of those things. I'm merely saying that relevant facts you don't know about when making a decision may (help) decide whether the decision you have made is ultimately a good one or a bad one. It has nothing to do with being foolish or wise. Last time I checked we weren't discussing Robb's level of intelligence but whether it could have been better for him to go to King's Landing and bend the knee (while failing to do that automatically meant rebellion). I think the information they actually had was enough to make him and Catelyn more than a little wary about going near the Lannisters without an army, but there were also factors they didn't know about but we do, and which also make it likely that the whole "bend the knee" invitation could have been a trap. 

Ok. Robb was ultimately wrong to have not declared truce with the lanisters and gone to KL to kneel. Because Tywin would have insured he'd been granted safe escort and his punishment would be more than benighn. Reader's hindsight does not give credence to a charachter was wrong to elect Action a instead of action B when everything points to action A being the correct course and vice-versa. You brought the twincest as a point for why Robb was wise to not go to KL to kneel. Robb couldn't have known that. Let's keep things centered on what the charachters know when judging their actions.

 

1 hour ago, Julia H. said:

4. What neutral territory? Jeoffrey demanded that all and sundry go to him and bend the knee. Do you think he would have accepted the idea that they could meet in Braavos for a quick homage? What would have happened later? If a bannerman of yours does not go to your seat for fear of being imprisoned or executed and is only willing to meet you in "neutral territory" (an awfully inconvenient idea when the whole continent is your kingdom, so not "neautral"), it definitely raises certain issues. 

Meh I was thinking open field in front. But another country works good too.  The whole continent is not complete-two kingdoms are rebeling. 

 

1 hour ago, Julia H. said:

 

5. It is not only the family in this case, but the nobility of the North. You can repeat as many times as you want that they would still have been enraged at the execution if Ned had been the greatest villain in the North and if everybody had hated his guts, we don't know that it would have been so, and I'm not sure what you want to prove with this. Is it that they weren't right to be enraged at the execution of their trusted, respected and loved lord because you are sure they would have been enraged at the execution of their dishonest, hated and universally despised lord just as well? I can't foll

I thought I was agreeing with you? Second examination of this thread no. 

 

1 hour ago, Julia H. said:

6. If someone is only right from his own POV, it doesn't mean that he is right.

I did not say Joffery was right to execute Ned. I said from his pov(not being privy to the knowledge of the fact he's a spawn of inchest having not read ASOIAF or watched the tv show), Ned Stark had committed treason and he was acting well-within his rights as king. I'm not saying he was morally right.

1 hour ago, Julia H. said:

Regarding what you are saying about noble families never accepting that their family member was rightly punished, we have a counterexample for that right there in the North. Jeor Mormont loved his only son with all his heart, yet, he never blamed Ned for taking action against Jorah because he understood that Jorah had committed a crime. His greatest hope was that his son would return home and take the black to atone for what he had done. The Mormonts remained unwavering supporters of the Starks despite Jorah.

Meh, it's more generality. 

 

1 hour ago, Julia H. said:

As for Alys Karstark, sure she is bitter about her father's death, but she doesn't remember him as a perfect person without a fault, who couldn't do wrong, and she still turns to Jon for protection specifically because he is "the last living son of Eddard Stark", which shows that she still trusts the Starks after her father's execution by another son of Eddard Stark. Her example and the example of the Mormonts actually strongly indicate that family ties do not necessarily make the nobility blind to right and wrong.

She clearly hates Robb for enacting justice on her father. Her not thinking Rickard was perfect and the Starks in general to be all bad does not mean she and along with the rest of house Karstark arent recognizing Rickard had done something warranting a beheading. Rickard was enacting Justice, Robb wronged him and the Karstarks.  

 

1 hour ago, Julia H. said:

Therefore if the Starks and the North in general had known that King Joffrey the Just had just executed a shameless, scheming traitor, who had deserved to die, and that the just king would never hurt anyone who didn't do anything wrong, it is totally within the realms of possibility that Robb  and Catelyn would have gone to King's Landing and bent the knee, perhaps even feeling secretly grateful that a new era in the North could now start.

They didn't actually hear(Robb and his immediate bannermen), did not wait to see any evidence or beesech the throne. 

 

1 hour ago, Julia H. said:

8. Making peace after the war has been going on for a while is probably more complicated than bending the knee before you actually go to war. In this particular case, as I earlier said, Robb was chosen King of an independent North. His mandate was to defend the independence of the North (or die trying). The Lannisters weren't ready to agree to the secession. That was just one thing that made peace-making more complicated during the war than before it. Making peace is not the same as bending the knee. 

But I was initially referring to Tyrion being able to insure their safety. Making peace does not mean bending the knee. Bending the knee is simply a way peace could be made. Robb would be forever shamed if he bent the knee. 

 

1 hour ago, Julia H. said:

. I honestly don't know how they could have turned to Tyrion in private, hoping that he would be more willing to make peace on terms the North could have accepted than the other Lannisters. I mean what I don't see is how such a step could have been taken in practice, in the first place. Then, even if it had been feasible and Tyrion had been willing, would Tyrion have acted behind Tywin's back? If so, how long would such a peace last with Tywin commanding the army and Joffrey having the right - as you say - to go back on promises made by others in his name? If you are correct that Joffrey has the right to veto, at any point, every deal made by the adults on behalf of the IT, then it really doesn't matter which of his family members can be trusted.

He couldn't. At most he could assure if Robb came to bend the knee he'd safe. 

It's worth noting Jamie is still hostage so the north could use his life as collateral

1 hour ago, Julia H. said:

 

When Catelyn released Jaime, it was meant to be a huge act of goodwill in the hope that it would be honoured and returned (by the release of the Stark girls). But it was also a very desperate action of a mother who had lost several of her children and was trying to rescue the others, and it meant voluntarily giving up their greatest asset against the Lannisters. There was very little hope that Catelyn's plan would succeed because of all the things that could go (and did go) wrong. What comes through to me is not how much Catelyn trusted Tyrion (or Jaime) but that she was grasping at straws in her desperation.   

I doubt Catelyn would have done so if her dealings with Tyrion was less friendly. But maybe not. Desperation can lead anyone to do anything.

[Julia H.]

2 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

1. He goes to WF to pick them up and drop them off with someone he'd trust to competently lead the north. 

 

1. It would indicate he's some intelligence enough to take badic safety precautions. 

 

1. Wait he would have not appoint a lord protector if he feared his safety in traveling to KL.

 

1. Which is why he'd be wise to appoint a lord protector before heading to KL.

 

2. Ok. Robb was ultimately wrong to have not declared truce with the lanisters and gone to KL to kneel. Because Tywin would have insured he'd been granted safe escort and his punishment would be more than benighn. Reader's hindsight does not give credence to a charachter was wrong to elect Action a instead of action B when everything points to action A being the correct course and vice-versa. You brought the twincest as a point for why Robb was wise to not go to KL to kneel. Robb couldn't have known that. Let's keep things centered on what the charachters know when judging their actions.

 

3. Meh I was thinking open field in front. But another country works good too.  The whole continent is not complete-two kingdoms are rebeling. 

3. Meh, it's more generality. 

 

4. She clearly hates Robb for enacting justice on her father. Her not thinking Rickard was perfect and the Starks in general to be all bad does not mean she and along with the rest of house Karstark arent recognizing Rickard had done something warranting a beheading. 5. Rickard was enacting Justice, Robb wronged him and the Karstarks.  

 

6. They didn't actually hear(Robb and his immediate bannermen), did not wait to see any evidence or beesech the throne. 

 

7. But I was initially referring to Tyrion being able to insure their safety. Making peace does not mean bending the knee. Bending the knee is simply a way peace could be made. Robb would be forever shamed if he bent the knee. 

 

He couldn't. At most he could assure if Robb came to bend the knee he'd safe. 

It's worth noting Jamie is still hostage so the north could use his life as collateral

8. I doubt Catelyn would have done so if her dealings with Tyrion was less friendly. But maybe not. Desperation can lead anyone to do anything.

1. These lines only tell me you didn't get my point at all.

2. It must be great to know for sure what would have happened if... Now, that's certainly one thing the characters couldn't know. The characters don't have your insight into what would have happened. Nor do I.

3. Meh. Yeah.

What you call "more generality" is actually a very specific example (the Mormont case) against your generalization:

Quote

Such is the way of nobility. Acts against their family are always going to be unjust in their minds.

4. She is the only Karstark besides Rickard who ever talks about this on page. "Clearly hates" is deduction rather than anything that is shown by her words or actions, but somehow she still thinks and says that a son of Eddard Stark (which Robb was, too) would be the best protector to turn to in great distress. That's very far from open enmity. 

5. I'm not sure if this is your opinion or you are just describing what Rickard thought. If it is your opinion, I absolutely disagree. Karstark killed two unarmed POW's who had absolutely nothing to do with his sons' death in battle. He was mad with grief, which is totally understandable, but that doesn't mean what he did was Justice. He probably thought so, I agree about that.

6. Because they knew what Eddard was like? Because they had a fairly good idea of what Joffrey was like? Because if the IT was to show any evidence to them, it would have been right to show them the evidence before the execution? Because it was customary to send highborn convicts to the Wall? Because Joffrey was demanding that they go to him and put themselves in danger of suffering the same fate as Eddard instead of trying to explain to them what had happened as an act of goodwill? Because Joffrey never sent home the Stark girls who were kids and couldn't take part in any treason?

7. Perhaps. But that sort of trust simply wasn't there by the time Tyrion became Hand. Think of Sansa. Tyrion genuinely and sincerely tried to protect her against Joffrey and was kind to her, but after what she had been through, she would never make the mistake of trusting a Lannister again. I can't blame her. That's how it works, and not only in the case of Sansa. 

8. At this point, Catelyn would have done anything that gave her the tiniest bit of hope that her daughters might be rescued. 

 

[Lord Varys]

I don't think there would have been anything wrong with any of those Vale cousins, especially if we are talking about one of the main-line Corbrays and Waynwoods. Ser Lyn Corbray could most definitely keep the North in line, that's for sure.

The problem with the Jon issue really is the Night's Watch vow. Even if Robb would have been able to get to an agreement with the leadership of the Watch - unlikely, in my opinion, considering that the Watch would very obviously forsake their neutrality if they gave the King in the North his new heir - then the chances aren't that good that a majority of the Lords of the North would look kindly on this distasteful and dishonorable way to get somebody out of the black. Men like Lord Ryswell are praised in the North for the way the helped to uphold the vows of the Night's Watch. Those Northmen still believing in the Watch and its mission would not respect Robb's decision nor Jon Snow as their potential new king.

A 'King Jon' would likely get as much support from the Northmen as Rhaenyra did from the lords of the Realm when her father died. Some might choose to back him. Others might turn to other potential heirs, most notably Sansa Stark. Or perhaps even some of the Vale cousins.

If Jon hadn't taken the black he would have been the ideal heir. If Robb had legitimized him he could even have put him before Brandon and Rickon in the succession, if they had been still around, simply because Jon was much older (and no cripple) and thus able to rule in his own right should Robb's reign be cut short.

The idea of a Tully heir - Edmure - to Robb's crown isn't so far-fetched. Robb is the King in the North and the King at the Trident. He rules both the Riverlands and the North. If a Stark can rule the Riverlands then a Tully relation of Robb's certainly could also rule the North if the king decreed that. This possibility never comes up but it might have been a real possibility if it had come up.

[The Sunland Lord]

13 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Ser Lyn Corbray could most definitely keep the North in line, that's for sure.

This would mean Littlefinger keeping the North in line.