Did Littlefinger influece Joffrey in executing Ned?

[John Suburbs]

On ‎2‎/‎3‎/‎2018 at 2:09 AM, Lollygag said:

I'll only reply if you edit the above to show the content of my full post as some of these replies don't work without my words being deleted or edited to look like I said something I really didn't. These piecemeal quote/response, quote/response, quote/response ... taken to an absurd extent too often degrade the quality of the discussion at best and are used by some to be tricksy or even dishonest at worst. Not doing them anymore as it's too much work to really keep straight with so much hacking. 

Well sorry then. It looked to me like you were saying Littlefinger killed Joffrey because he posed too much of a threat to Sansa while Cersei doesn't pose as much of a threat. It still looks that way to me, but whatever.

[John Suburbs]

On ‎2‎/‎3‎/‎2018 at 8:01 AM, Lady Anna said:

There's a clear difference between Ned & Dany and Joffrey.... And he's never hurts people for his own entertainment??!! Didn't he just randomly killed people over the walls of the Red Keep? And besides, he hunted rabbits (I think it was rabbits), tortured a cat, made others beat Sansa.....he's not just a ''chaotic'' kid.

He randomly killed people who were storming the gates of the Red Keep. That's called treason.

Last time I checked, rabbits are not people. Neither are cats.

And while there is no doubt that he takes satisfaction in having Sansa beaten, the fact remains that Sansa's family is in open rebellion against the crown and King Robb is winning victory after victory in the Riverlands. I can't say for sure about the earlier beatings, but the final one was in direct response to the Lannister loss at Oxcross where Joffrey says flat out "you are here to answer for your brother's latest treasons." This may seem harsh to you and me, but that was the way it was done back then -- hostages were used to intimidate ones enemies. And this is the primary rational for the beatings: to send Robb a message that the more Lannisters he kills in battle, the more Sansa will suffer. As I said, Sansa's beatings are not random and they are not strictly for Joff's enjoyment -- there is a larger purpose here.

Ned callously killed a man who witness an unspeakable horror in the Haunted Forest and fled for his life. Dany made an honest bargain with a man who was simply plying the trade that his people have plied for thousands of years and then unleashed a massacre against hundreds if not thousands of others who had never done her any harm. Many, many people consider Dany a monster.

[Lord Varys]

25 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

He randomly killed people who were storming the gates of the Red Keep. That's called treason.

They were asking for food, etc. That is not treason. That's asking your king doing his job.

25 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

And while there is no doubt that he takes satisfaction in having Sansa beaten, the fact remains that Sansa's family is in open rebellion against the crown and King Robb is winning victory after victory in the Riverlands. I can't say for sure about the earlier beatings, but the final one was in direct response to the Lannister loss at Oxcross where Joffrey says flat out "you are here to answer for your brother's latest treasons." This may seem harsh to you and me, but that was the way it was done back then -- hostages were used to intimidate ones enemies. And this is the primary rational for the beatings: to send Robb a message that the more Lannisters he kills in battle, the more Sansa will suffer. As I said, Sansa's beatings are not random and they are not strictly for Joff's enjoyment -- there is a larger purpose here.

That is an important point. Sansa is a hostage and is treated as such. She isn't an honored guest, or anything. They could have taken her head when Robb declared himself king.

[Angel Eyes]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

They were asking for food, etc. That is not treason. That's asking your king doing his job.

That is an important point. Sansa is a hostage and is treated as such. She isn't an honored guest, or anything. They could have taken her head when Robb declared himself king.

I’m surprised they didn’t. Maybe for public relations in keeping Sansa’s betrothal to Joffrey intact?

[Lady Anna]

3 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

He randomly killed people who were storming the gates of the Red Keep. That's called treason.

Last time I checked, rabbits are not people. Neither are cats.

And while there is no doubt that he takes satisfaction in having Sansa beaten, the fact remains that Sansa's family is in open rebellion against the crown and King Robb is winning victory after victory in the Riverlands. I can't say for sure about the earlier beatings, but the final one was in direct response to the Lannister loss at Oxcross where Joffrey says flat out "you are here to answer for your brother's latest treasons." This may seem harsh to you and me, but that was the way it was done back then -- hostages were used to intimidate ones enemies. And this is the primary rational for the beatings: to send Robb a message that the more Lannisters he kills in battle, the more Sansa will suffer. As I said, Sansa's beatings are not random and they are not strictly for Joff's enjoyment -- there is a larger purpose here.

Ned callously killed a man who witness an unspeakable horror in the Haunted Forest and fled for his life. Dany made an honest bargain with a man who was simply plying the trade that his people have plied for thousands of years and then unleashed a massacre against hundreds if not thousands of others who had never done her any harm. Many, many people consider Dany a monster.

Well we clearly disagree. And oh my god! a well-adjusted kid does not kill animals for fun; in fact, doing that says a lot about his personality. And just because he is a king, that doesn't mean every horrible thing he does has a reason behind it (you said in a previous post that ' he has never hurt or killed people at random'). Acording to you everything he did was basically part of his legal duties as king and that kings have to do horrible things while doing the kings' justice (so, following your logic, Ned doing exactly that is 'callous' murder but Joffrey's actions aren't?) .

I'm sorry, but I really don't know how to respond to this. That's how much I absolutely disagree with you, and with your inability to see Joffrey as completely different from Ned and Dany. That's like someone saying Cersei is exactly like Brienne. It's not a question of ~moral complexity or ~difficult choices. Can't you step outside of this story and see the characters as they are? Do you think Martin intended for any other interpretation of Joffrey besides as an evil brat? And I'm talking about Joffrey himself, not how his actions may serve other purposes or be useful to someone else. I mean, honestly. Not even Martin, nor other characters in the story, are in any way invested in defending Joffrey to this degree.

I mean killing people who are starving and begging for help is justifiable because it's 'treason'? In Joffrey's mind it was no doubt. I guess the slaves that Dany released (the so called 'trade' you mention is slavery btw), revolting against their masters, was also wrong of them to do, because hey, they should just obey their masters and stay quiet. The fact that you think Joffrey killing beggars (because 'it's treason' and therefore legally sound) somehow equals, (or worse, may not be nearly as bad!) than Dany releasing people from slavery and punishing their masters, is unbelievable to me.

And I can absolutely claim that what a character does in this series is despicable regardless of it being accepted and normalized in-story. (Or on the contrary, say that something that's considered wrong in Westeros/Essos is actually right and good). Or would you expect me to say that since rape is a normal occurence in Westeros then it's fine? And Dany trying to fight slavery is bad? And 'the way it was back then'? Do we live in Westeros? I'm not sure that using the historical accuracy card about books that include dragons and zombies is completely right. It's not about historical accuracy, it's about what the rules of the fictional world say. So, can people mistreat hostages as retaliation in Westeros? Yes, they can. That won't however change my opinion on Joffrey, because I'm not meant to.

[Lord Varys]

3 hours ago, Angel Eyes said:

I’m surprised they didn’t. Maybe for public relations in keeping Sansa’s betrothal to Joffrey intact?

Girls/women are usually not important hostages, nor are they killed on a regular basis. Just look at Rhaenyra sparing the lives of both Queen Helaena and Queen Alicent.

But the crucial point actually is that Cersei and Joffrey would have been not wrong had they ended up killing Sansa in retribution for Robb crowning himself. Just as Robb/Cat could (and should) have killed Jaime in response to Joffrey executing Ned.

If you don't use a hostage the way a hostage is supposed to be used then you look weak.

Ned knew that he had to - and was willing - to kill Theon should Balon ever rise again against King Robert.

Joffrey mistreating and abusing Sansa is ugly, but it is actually a trivial matter in comparison what they could have done to her.

As a person Joffrey is an ass, but he is also still a child.

He is drunk when he cuts Mycah, and he actually wants to impress Sansa and Arya there. It is understandable that he grows to hate and resent both girls after that experience because his royal father (and uncle) actually publicly mock and scold him for being disarmed by a little girl. This is a matter of personal honor now.

He clearly was on the way of becoming a very bad and cruel king (him forcing men to fight to the death testify to that) but he wasn't there yet.

[Ser Duncan of Flea Bottom]

51 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Girls/women are usually not important hostages, nor are they killed on a regular basis. Just look at Rhaenyra sparing the lives of both Queen Helaena and Queen Alicent.

But the crucial point actually is that Cersei and Joffrey would have been not wrong had they ended up killing Sansa in retribution for Robb crowning himself. Just as Robb/Cat could (and should) have killed Jaime in response to Joffrey executing Ned.

If you don't use a hostage the way a hostage is supposed to be used then you look weak.

Ned knew that he had to - and was willing - to kill Theon should Balon ever rise again against King Robert.

Joffrey mistreating and abusing Sansa is ugly, but it is actually a trivial matter in comparison what they could have done to her.

As a person Joffrey is an ass, but he is also still a child.

He is drunk when he cuts Mycah, and he actually wants to impress Sansa and Arya there. It is understandable that he grows to hate and resent both girls after that experience because his royal father (and uncle) actually publicly mock and scold him for being disarmed by a little girl. This is a matter of personal honor now.

He clearly was on the way of becoming a very bad and cruel king (him forcing men to fight to the death testify to that) but he wasn't there yet.

I agree with you

Robert told Ned during the Tourney of the Hand that he wished to leave the crown behind and sail across the Narrow Sea, to live as a sellsword, but he couldn't do that because he knew Joffrey would be king then and he would have Cersei whispering in his ear.

Other than that, Robert was no role model, he was often drunk and he didn't have a good relationship with Cersei and it seems to me that he was very distant from "his children". He was also a whoremonger, what example was he setting there? I also have the feeling Robert had slapped Cersei more than once in those fourteen years of marriage and I think Joffrey was present sometimes, even Myrcella and Tommen.

Joffrey was a cruel child, yes, he was, but we are forgetting he was a child with a terrible upbringing, a cunning mother, a drunk father, a court filled with snakes, a small council full of opportunists. Even the Kingsguard was not a good example, the only good man would be Ser Barristan. 

[John Suburbs]

22 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

They were asking for food, etc. That is not treason. That's asking your king doing his job.

Not exactly. First, Ser Boros' account:

Quote

Sansa II, aCoK

"Fools at the gate. Some loose tongues spread tales of the preparations for Tyrek's wedding feast, and these wretches got it in their heads they should be feasted too. His Grace led a sortie and sent them scurrying."

Then Joffrey's:

Quote

Sansa III, aCoK

"I killed a man last night who was bigger than your father. They came to the gate shouting my name and calling for bread like I was some baker, but I taught them better.

So there was a mob forming at the gates, and they weren't simply asking for food. They were probably led by a begging brother "spouting treason" as Cersei says and full of anger and hostility, as we see in subsequent chapters. If they were simple supplicants on their knees begging for food, Joffrey probably would never have known about them.

[John Suburbs]

21 hours ago, Lady Anna said:

Well we clearly disagree. And oh my god! a well-adjusted kid does not kill animals for fun; in fact, doing that says a lot about his personality. And just because he is a king, that doesn't mean every horrible thing he does has a reason behind it (you said in a previous post that ' he has never hurt or killed people at random'). Acording to you everything he did was basically part of his legal duties as king and that kings have to do horrible things while doing the kings' justice (so, following your logic, Ned doing exactly that is 'callous' murder but Joffrey's actions aren't?) .

This is a feudal society not a post-industrial 21st Century western civilization. Everybody in the Red Keep would be quite accustomed to all manner of animals being killed, skinned, gutted and chopped up into little pieces in the kitchens every day. So Joffrey would be reprimanded for killing a pregnant cat, but not because it was a terrible, sicko, psycho thing to do but because cats are rather useful animals that help keep vermin under control, including rabbits, which can quickly breed into the thousands if you don't get rid of them. And sorry, but there is not a single horrible thing that Joffrey has done that was solely for his own pleasure and for no other reason. If I'm overlooking something, please post.

21 hours ago, Lady Anna said:

I'm sorry, but I really don't know how to respond to this. That's how much I absolutely disagree with you, and with your inability to see Joffrey as completely different from Ned and Dany. That's like someone saying Cersei is exactly like Brienne. It's not a question of ~moral complexity or ~difficult choices. Can't you step outside of this story and see the characters as they are? Do you think Martin intended for any other interpretation of Joffrey besides as an evil brat? And I'm talking about Joffrey himself, not how his actions may serve other purposes or be useful to someone else. I mean, honestly. Not even Martin, nor other characters in the story, are in any way invested in defending Joffrey to this degree.

I do see Joffrey as very different from Ned and Dany and I am not defending him in any way. The point I'm making is that other people in this feudal society would see Joffrey as harsh but not necessarily a complete psycho loony. Even the Mad King had broad support in the land, right up until the rebels won and the official histories labeled him the Mad King. Your point about Brienne and Cersei explains this perfectly. We see Cersei as inherently evil and Brienne as inherently good, and yet by the end of the story so far, another "good" character condemns Brienne to death because of the betrayal she sees at her hand, and she would do the same thing to Cersei if she had her. If you've learned anything by reading Martin, it's that characters are not black and white but multiple shades of gray. So if you really want to see into the subtext to see what is really going on, you should start viewing the characters the way other characters see them, not the way you do.

21 hours ago, Lady Anna said:

I mean killing people who are starving and begging for help is justifiable because it's 'treason'? In Joffrey's mind it was no doubt. I guess the slaves that Dany released (the so called 'trade' you mention is slavery btw), revolting against their masters, was also wrong of them to do, because hey, they should just obey their masters and stay quiet. The fact that you think Joffrey killing beggars (because 'it's treason' and therefore legally sound) somehow equals, (or worse, may not be nearly as bad!) than Dany releasing people from slavery and punishing their masters, is unbelievable to me.

As I explained above, they were not "begging", they were rioting, and I never said it was wrong of them to do so. What I'm saying is that even though Joffrey killed one of these people and wounded another, the people of Westeros would not conclude from this that Joffrey is a homicidal nutjob.  Again, you are applying 21st Century standards as to what is moral, legal and sane to a 13th Century feudal society where the accepted definition legal is that "all justice flows from the king." So you and I may be shocked by Joffrey's attitude toward people in need because in our world we have things called "human rights" and the idea that the government is answerable to the people and should act as servants to society. But these are completely alien concepts to the people of Planetos. The king makes the law; the king carries out the law; the king is answerable to no one. If you don't like it, you are free to leave or attempt to overthrow the king. Good luck. The same goes for Dany. She was powerful enough to overthrow a slave-holding society, but as we saw in Dance, not even every slave is happy about this.

21 hours ago, Lady Anna said:

And I can absolutely claim that what a character does in this series is despicable regardless of it being accepted and normalized in-story. (Or on the contrary, say that something that's considered wrong in Westeros/Essos is actually right and good). Or would you expect me to say that since rape is a normal occurence in Westeros then it's fine? And Dany trying to fight slavery is bad? And 'the way it was back then'? Do we live in Westeros? I'm not sure that using the historical accuracy card about books that include dragons and zombies is completely right. It's not about historical accuracy, it's about what the rules of the fictional world say. So, can people mistreat hostages as retaliation in Westeros? Yes, they can. That won't however change my opinion on Joffrey, because I'm not meant to.

You have every right to think all of these things and nobody is trying to change your opinions about Joffrey. But when people try to argue that Littlefinger or Lady Olenna wanted to kill Joffrey because he was a "homicidal nut," that is applying modern morality to people who have no concept of our ideas of law, justice and proper governance. Despite Littlefinger's painfully obvious lies on the matter, there is nothing in the text that even remotely suggests either of them had any desire, nor any reason, to kill Joffrey. In fact, when you look at it through their perspectives and the strategic imperatives of their individual Games of Thrones, they both had every reason to keep Joffrey alive since he would have been an invaluable, and practically irreplaceable, asset.

[Lady Anna]

2 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

This is a feudal society not a post-industrial 21st Century western civilization. Everybody in the Red Keep would be quite accustomed to all manner of animals being killed, skinned, gutted and chopped up into little pieces in the kitchens every day. So Joffrey would be reprimanded for killing a pregnant cat, but not because it was a terrible, sicko, psycho thing to do but because cats are rather useful animals that help keep vermin under control, including rabbits, which can quickly breed into the thousands if you don't get rid of them. And sorry, but there is not a single horrible thing that Joffrey has done that was solely for his own pleasure and for no other reason. If I'm overlooking something, please post.

I do see Joffrey as very different from Ned and Dany and I am not defending him in any way. The point I'm making is that other people in this feudal society would see Joffrey as harsh but not necessarily a complete psycho loony. Even the Mad King had broad support in the land, right up until the rebels won and the official histories labeled him the Mad King. Your point about Brienne and Cersei explains this perfectly. We see Cersei as inherently evil and Brienne as inherently good, and yet by the end of the story so far, another "good" character condemns Brienne to death because of the betrayal she sees at her hand, and she would do the same thing to Cersei if she had her. If you've learned anything by reading Martin, it's that characters are not black and white but multiple shades of gray. So if you really want to see into the subtext to see what is really going on, you should start viewing the characters the way other characters see them, not the way you do.

As I explained above, they were not "begging", they were rioting, and I never said it was wrong of them to do so. What I'm saying is that even though Joffrey killed one of these people and wounded another, the people of Westeros would not conclude from this that Joffrey is a homicidal nutjob.  Again, you are applying 21st Century standards as to what is moral, legal and sane to a 13th Century feudal society where the accepted definition legal is that "all justice flows from the king." So you and I may be shocked by Joffrey's attitude toward people in need because in our world we have things called "human rights" and the idea that the government is answerable to the people and should act as servants to society. But these are completely alien concepts to the people of Planetos. The king makes the law; the king carries out the law; the king is answerable to no one. If you don't like it, you are free to leave or attempt to overthrow the king. Good luck. The same goes for Dany. She was powerful enough to overthrow a slave-holding society, but as we saw in Dance, not even every slave is happy about this.

You have every right to think all of these things and nobody is trying to change your opinions about Joffrey. But when people try to argue that Littlefinger or Lady Olenna wanted to kill Joffrey because he was a "homicidal nut," that is applying modern morality to people who have no concept of our ideas of law, justice and proper governance. Despite Littlefinger's painfully obvious lies on the matter, there is nothing in the text that even remotely suggests either of them had any desire, nor any reason, to kill Joffrey. In fact, when you look at it through their perspectives and the strategic imperatives of their individual Games of Thrones, they both had every reason to keep Joffrey alive since he would have been an invaluable, and practically irreplaceable, asset.

I understand how the characters see each other in their own world, but I also see them as fictional characters with their own roles in the story. Maybe we're addressing different things. I won't debate you on the question of Joffrey's actions because we simply disagree on that. And I think there are characters who think of Joffrey as a bad and cruel king, from Stannis to the Tyrells (who had political and personal reasons to kill him). I mean, some recognized that Aerys was a violent evil person and he was their king.

And now talking in a general way, moral grayness is a slippery slope; a lot of readers of this series are fixated on that for some reason (probably the same people that believe that Hitler was ''morally grey and complex'', something I've actually seen written on this forum, and which is an incredibly stupid and offensive thing to say, and I think Martin even said it!). I feel like it and historical accuracy are usually used by a lot of people to excuse tons of bad things happening in fictional works, (gratuitious sexual violence almost always) - that an author created from scratch and chose to include in their story - because ''it was how things happened back then''. But how can you even apply that to a fantasy story set in a completely different world, only resembling our own because the author chose to do so as he could have chosen not to? Like I said before I think you can only judge things by the rules of/within the fictional world, in these cases, since you can never even apply it completely to this kind of story. Anyway that's why I don't like that kind of justification.

[Lord Varys]

2 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

So there was a mob forming at the gates, and they weren't simply asking for food. They were probably led by a begging brother "spouting treason" as Cersei says and full of anger and hostility, as we see in subsequent chapters. If they were simple supplicants on their knees begging for food, Joffrey probably would never have known about them.

Still, a king has a duty to keep the King's Peace and enforce the law. If he cannot guarantee a stable and working economy - or at least provide the people of his capital with the bare minimum of food to live - he is in trouble. Knowing Joff and Cersei both humble supplicants would have been - and likely were - treated with contempt. They were either not willing or incapable of sharing their provisions with the Kingslanders.

Now, when the king actively turns against his people he is in a very bad position. He might have no other choice, but if he goes down that road he cannot really complain when his people rip him to pieces.

[Ygrain]

Just to quip in: Joffrey's actions are seen as violating the standard even in-world. We have Sansa's PoV for Joffrey dealing "justice", and she doesn't like it one bit. Both Tyrion and Tywin are worried that Joffrey is becoming Aerys 2.0, and as for Aerys... he was mad, the whole realm knew it.

Concerning the "harsh justice": while accepted and defended by some, it is frowned upon by others as crossing the line, so the argument of Joffrey's beahviour being a norm of the time really doesn't stand up to scrutiny because it is definitely not universally accepted.

[John Suburbs]

17 hours ago, Lady Anna said:

I understand how the characters see each other in their own world, but I also see them as fictional characters with their own roles in the story. Maybe we're addressing different things. I won't debate you on the question of Joffrey's actions because we simply disagree on that. And I think there are characters who think of Joffrey as a bad and cruel king, from Stannis to the Tyrells (who had political and personal reasons to kill him). I mean, some recognized that Aerys was a violent evil person and he was their king.

And now talking in a general way, moral grayness is a slippery slope; a lot of readers of this series are fixated on that for some reason (probably the same people that believe that Hitler was ''morally grey and complex'', something I've actually seen written on this forum, and which is an incredibly stupid and offensive thing to say, and I think Martin even said it!). I feel like it and historical accuracy are usually used by a lot of people to excuse tons of bad things happening in fictional works, (gratuitious sexual violence almost always) - that an author created from scratch and chose to include in their story - because ''it was how things happened back then''. But how can you even apply that to a fantasy story set in a completely different world, only resembling our own because the author chose to do so as he could have chosen not to? Like I said before I think you can only judge things by the rules of/within the fictional world, in these cases, since you can never even apply it completely to this kind of story. Anyway that's why I don't like that kind of justification.

Nobody is justifying anything. I don't know where you keep getting this idea. All I'm saying is that if you really want to puzzle out what is happening behind the scenes in ASoIaF, you'll look at events and relationships through the character's eyes, not your own. In that light, there are absolutely no reason at all for the Tyrells to want to kill Joffrey. They are about to acquire a decades long dream of siring a Tyrell heir to the Iron Throne. What possible benefit, political, personal or otherwise, could there be in throwing that away for the highly uncertain prospect that Tommen will be around five years from now to give them what they already have right here and now. There is no indication whatsoever that Joffrey intends to harm Margaery in any way, nor is there any reason for him to do so. He simply does not just walk around hurting and torturing people at random for no good reason. So, again, looking at it from their perspective, not your own, it makes all the sense in the world to let this marriage proceed no matter how much they may dislike Joffrey personally, get as many Tyrell heirs out of him as they can, and then if Joffrey becomes a problem later he can always be dealt with in private, without a thousand witnesses looking on and when the entire Tyrell extended family is safe and sound back in their castles.

Yes, some people, many people, recognized that Aerys was a violent and evil person, and no doubt the Tyrells did too, yet they continued to support him to the bitter end, and after. Aerys was roasting high lords alive in their armor with wildfire while their sons struggled to save them bringing about their own deaths. If this wasn't enough for the Tryells to break with Aerys, than Joffrey ordering a beating to a member of a rebellious house or feathering a few commoners trying to break into the Red Keep is certainly not going to cause them to break with him.

And I'll also point out that the reason people in King's Landing are starving in the first place is because the Tyrells ended shipments of food up the rose road for their own narrow, self-serving interests. So much for their concern about the smallfolk.

 

[John Suburbs]

17 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Still, a king has a duty to keep the King's Peace and enforce the law. If he cannot guarantee a stable and working economy - or at least provide the people of his capital with the bare minimum of food to live - he is in trouble. Knowing Joff and Cersei both humble supplicants would have been - and likely were - treated with contempt. They were either not willing or incapable of sharing their provisions with the Kingslanders.

Now, when the king actively turns against his people he is in a very bad position. He might have no other choice, but if he goes down that road he cannot really complain when his people rip him to pieces.

People who are attempting to storm the Red Keep for any reason are breaking the King's Peace and violating the law. No ruler can guarantee a stable and working economy all the time, particularly when war breaks out. And as I pointed out above, it was the Tyrells pursuing their own self-serving interests that closed the Rose Road and caused the famine in the first place. So it would be the height of hypocrisy to label Joffrey a murderous monster for reacting in the same way as any other king or high lord would to a situation that they created.

Sure, Cersei and Joff would treat humble supplicants with contempt, and probably send the Gold Cloaks to scatter them, but they would not kill them unless they were to suddenly turn hostile. And of course, if this problem ever reaches a critical mass where it threatens Joff's ability to rule, he has a big problem on his hands. But we are nowhere near this point yet, and the simple fact is that most highborn would look at Joffrey's actions as those of a bold and decisive king because they would do the exact same thing if someone where trying to break through their own gates.

Again, the point I'm trying to make is not to excuse or justify anything that Joffrey does, but offer an historical perspective for the way members of a medieval society, where all justice comes from the king and there is no such thing as human rights, would view these kinds of circumstances. Readers interpret events in the story with a 21st Century post-industrial mindset; the characters do not.

 

[Lord Varys]

4 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

People who are attempting to storm the Red Keep for any reason are breaking the King's Peace and violating the law. No ruler can guarantee a stable and working economy all the time, particularly when war breaks out. And as I pointed out above, it was the Tyrells pursuing their own self-serving interests that closed the Rose Road and caused the famine in the first place. So it would be the height of hypocrisy to label Joffrey a murderous monster for reacting in the same way as any other king or high lord would to a situation that they created.

There is some truth to that, but a king also has the duty to see to it that war does not break out. He has a duty to keep the King's Peace, too, which could also include to make concessions to rebels or rebellious people.

If you are a victim of those high lords and their game of thrones you have to do something to make your voice heard. And if you do not riot or make other trouble you are pretty much not heard.

4 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

Again, the point I'm trying to make is not to excuse or justify anything that Joffrey does, but offer an historical perspective for the way members of a medieval society, where all justice comes from the king and there is no such thing as human rights, would view these kinds of circumstances. Readers interpret events in the story with a 21st Century post-industrial mindset; the characters do not.

I'm not viewing the thing from a modern mindset. But it is in the best interest of a king to appear as if he listens or cares about the smallfolk - especially the people in his capital who can become a very real danger to him. The rabble has to be kept in place, of course, but Joffrey didn't exactly use the right means to do this.

[Lost Melnibonean]

Quote

It came to her suddenly that she had stood in this very spot before, on the day Lord Eddard Stark had lost his head. That was not supposed to happen. Joff was supposed to spare his life and send him to the Wall. Stark's eldest son would have followed him as Lord of Winterfell, but Sansa would have stayed at court, a hostage. Varys and Littlefingerhad worked out the terms, and Ned Stark had swallowed his precious honor and confessed his treason to save his daughter's empty little head. I would have made Sansa a good marriage. A Lannister marriage. Not Joff, of course, but Lancelmight have suited, or one of his younger brothers.Petyr Baelish had offered to wed the girl himself, she recalled, but of course that was impossible; he was much too lowborn. If Joff had only done as he was told, Winterfell would never have gone to war, and Father would have dealt with Robert's brothers.

Instead Joff had commanded that Stark's head be struck off, and Lord Slynt and Ser Ilyn Payne had hastened to obey. It was just there, the queen recalled, gazing at the spot. Janos Slynt had lifted Ned Stark's head by the hair as his life's blood flowed down the steps, and after that there was no turning back.

The memories seemed so distant. Joffrey was dead, and all Stark's sons as well. Even her father had perished. And here she stood on the steps of the Great Sept again, only this time it was her the mob was staring at, not Eddard Stark.

Cersei II, Dance 65

I am thinking that Cersei did not deny Petyr's offer by telling him that he was much too lowborn. Of course she might have, but she also raised the butcher’s son Janos to Lord of Harrenhal and gave him a seat on the Small Council. I am thinking that Cersei told Petyr that Sansa was still betrothed to Joffrey.

[Ygrain]

25 minutes ago, Lost Melnibonean said:

I am thinking that Cersei told Petyr that Sansa was still betrothed to Joffrey.

That is a good point.

[Lost Melnibonean]

Off-topic, but I did not want to start a new thread, and I think this is somewhat related...

From Sansa V, Game 57

Quote

When the king's herald moved forward, Sansarealized the moment was almost at hand. She smoothed down the cloth of her skirt nervously. She was dressed in mourning, as a sign of respect for the dead king, but she had taken special care to make herself beautiful. Her gown was the ivory silk that the queen had given her, the one Arya had ruined, but she'd had them dye it black and you couldn't see the stain at all. She had fretted over her jewelry for hours and finally decided upon the elegant simplicity of a plain silver chain.

I have always wondered if this moment was choreographed with the queen.

Quote

The herald's voice boomed out. "If any man in this hall has other matters to set before His Grace, let him speak now or go forth and hold his silence."

Sansa quailed. Now, she told herself, I must do it now. Gods give me courage. She took one step, then another. Lords and knights stepped aside silently to let her pass, and she felt the weight of their eyes on her. I must be as strong as my lady mother. "Your Grace," she called out in a soft, tremulous voice.

The height of the Iron Throne gave Joffrey a better vantage point than anyone else in the hall. He was the first to see her. "Come forward, my lady," he called out, smiling.

His smile emboldened her, made her feel beautiful and strong. He does love me, he does. Sansa lifted her head and walked toward him, not too slow and not too fast. She must not let them see how nervous she was.

Why do you suppose Joffrey smiled upon her here? Was he simply playing the gracious king? Was this part of some choreography?

Quote

"The Lady Sansa, of House Stark," the herald cried.

She stopped under the throne, at the spot where Ser Barristan's white cloak lay puddled on the floor beside his helm and breastplate. "Do you have some business for king and council, Sansa?" the queen asked from the council table.

Was the queen soliciting something here, playing a part?

Quote

"I do." She knelt on the cloak, so as not to spoil her gown, and looked up at her prince on his fearsome black throne. "As it please Your Grace, I ask mercy for my father, Lord Eddard Stark, who was the Hand of the King." She had practiced the words a hundred times.

What was the author conveying by having Sansa kneel on Ser Barristan’s cloak so as not to spoil her gown?

Quote

The queen sighed. "Sansa, you disappoint me. What did I tell you about traitor's blood?"

"Your father has committed grave and terrible crimes, my lady," Grand Maester Pycelle intoned.

"Ah, poor sad thing," sighed Varys. "She is only a babe, my lords, she does not know what she asks."

Sansa had eyes only for Joffrey. He must listen to me, he must, she thought.

These responses and Sansa's thoughts suggest to me that this plea for mercy was not choreographed.

Quote

The king shifted on his seat, "Let her speak," he commanded. "I want to hear what she says."

"Thank you, Your Grace." Sansa smiled, a shy secret smile, just for him. He was listening. She knew he would.

"Treason is a noxious weed," Pycelle declared solemnly. "It must be torn up, root and stem and seed, lest new traitors sprout from every roadside."

"Do you deny your father's crime?" Lord Baelishasked.

I wonder if Petyr Baelish might have helped to spur this? Perhaps a word about mercy, the need for Sansa to be as strong as her lady mother, and the tricks that milk of the poppy play on a man’s mind? He might have done this on his own, or perhaps at the request of the queen?

Quote

"No, my lords." Sansa knew better than that. "I know he must be punished. All I ask is mercy. I know my lord father must regret what he did. He was King Robert's friend and he loved him, you all know he loved him. He never wanted to be Hand until the king asked him. They must have lied to him. Lord Renly or Lord Stannis or . . . or somebody, they must have lied, otherwise . . . "

King Joffrey leaned forward, hands grasping the arms of the throne. Broken sword points fanned out between his fingers. "He said I wasn't the king. Why did he say that?"

Joffrey still has no idea of the twincest allegation.

Quote

"His leg was broken," Sansa replied eagerly. "It hurt ever so much, Maester Pycelle was giving him milk of the poppy, and they say that milk of the poppy fills your head with clouds. Otherwise he would never have said it."

Varys said, "A child's faith . . . such sweet innocence . . . and yet, they say wisdom oft comes from the mouths of babes."

"Treason is treason," Pycelle replied at once.

If the request was choreographed or inspired, Pycelle wasn’t in on it.  

Quote

Joffrey rocked restlessly on the throne. "Mother?"

Given how Joffrey acts later, this seems a bit out of character for him. Or it maybe it shows thatJoffrey started out pliable enough, and became difficult a bit more gradually?

Quote

Cersei Lannister considered Sansa thoughtfully. "If Lord Eddard were to confess his crime," she said at last, "we would know he had repented his folly."

Joffrey pushed himself to his feet. Please, Sansathought, please, please, be the king I know you are, good and kind and noble, please.

Sansa still has no idea of what a rotten soul this boy has.

Quote

"Do you have any more to say?" he asked her.

"Only . . . that as you love me, you do me this kindness, my prince," Sansa said.

King Joffrey looked her up and down.

Notice that she calls the king a prince, and he doesn’t flip out.

Quote

"Your sweet words have moved me," he said gallantly, nodding, as if to say all would be well. "I shall do as you ask . . . but first your father has to confess. He has to confess and say that I'm the king, or there will be no mercy for him."

"He will," Sansa said, heart soaring. "Oh, I know he will."

 

[Lollygag]

5 hours ago, Lost Melnibonean said:

Cersei II, Dance 65

I am thinking that Cersei did not deny Petyr's offer by telling him that he was much too lowborn. Of course she might have, but she also raised the butcher’s son Janos to Lord of Harrenhal and gave him a seat on the Small Council. I am thinking that Cersei told Petyr that Sansa was still betrothed to Joffrey.

I have a different take on this passage and Cersei's view of Sansa in general. 

In the passage you quoted above, Cersei says she'd make Sansa a good marriage - a Lannister marriage. Note that Cersei isn't thinking powerplays for Winterfell here and that Cersei (from Tywin?) believes Lannister blood is better than other blood, hence why this may be paying Sansa a compliment to marry her to a Lannister over another family. It may be a part of Cersei's narcissism again. Note that she cools to Jaime as he becomes less like her.

 

AFFC Cersei IV

The queen bristled. "I most certainly have not forgotten that little she-wolf." She refused to say the girl's name. "I ought to have shown her to the black cells as the daughter of a traitor, but instead I made her part of mine own household. She shared my hearth and hall, played with my own children. I fed her, dressed her, tried to make her a little less ignorant about the world, and how did she repay me for my kindness? She helped murder my son. When we find the Imp, we will find the Lady Sansa too. She is not dead . . . but before I am done with her, I promise you, she will be singing to the Stranger, begging for his kiss."

An awkward silence followed. Have they all swallowed their tongues? Cersei thought, with irritation. It was enough to make her wonder why she bothered with a council.

 

In this passage from a AFFC, we see that Cersei took Sansa under her wing and in essence, tried to turn Sansa into Cersei's mini-me. This can be seen in their discussion during the Battle of Blackwater too. A mini-me Cersei could only have a Lannister marriage which is why LF may have been reject -HARD. 

Cersei's rant about Sansa's betrayal sounds very personal to me. 

 

[John Suburbs]

On ‎2‎/‎6‎/‎2018 at 4:48 PM, Lord Varys said:

There is some truth to that, but a king also has the duty to see to it that war does not break out. He has a duty to keep the King's Peace, too, which could also include to make concessions to rebels or rebellious people.

If you are a victim of those high lords and their game of thrones you have to do something to make your voice heard. And if you do not riot or make other trouble you are pretty much not heard.

I'm not viewing the thing from a modern mindset. But it is in the best interest of a king to appear as if he listens or cares about the smallfolk - especially the people in his capital who can become a very real danger to him. The rabble has to be kept in place, of course, but Joffrey didn't exactly use the right means to do this.

The only concessions Joffrey can make to these people is to give them food. Let's say there are 20 people at the gate that night, how many equally starving people will be there the next night, and the night after, and the night after... ? There is not enough food in the city to feed everybody, so if he waits until he has thousands of beggars at the gate and then says he cannot feed them anymore, now he has the makings of a rebellion on his hands. This is the exact thing that Catelyn and the Blackfish were concerned about when Edmure opened his gates to refugees: too many mouths, not enough people. IIRC, Brynden turns all these people out when he becomes castellan, and nobody accuses him of being a heartless monster.

Sure, people rise up when they are starving and their overlords are living fat off the hog. Both the French and Russian revolutions began as bread riots. But in this day and age, few people, particularly other highborns, are going to think a king is a vicious, psychotic loony just because he kills a few disruptive commoners. Stannis' men were starving and dying at the crofter's village while Stannis and his lords, while not eating lavishly, were still eating and had roofs over their heads and fires to keep warm. When some of the men turned to cannibalism, Stannis did not forgive and feed them, he executed them in the most painful horrific manner imaginable -- and these are men who were prepared to give their lives to put Stannis on the throne. If he were a modern commander, he would be tried, convicted and probably executed as one of the worst war criminals of the age, but none of his men, and particularly his bannermen, think this is even improper, and nobody has suddenly decided that he is a psychotic murder who must be eliminated at all costs. This is just not the way people of this era thought.

So, sure, it would probably have been wiser for Joffrey to be more attentive to the smallfolk (although this did not win Aegon V any friends, did it), but this is vastly different from thinking that people like Lady O would conclude that he is a psycho nutbag and that the only thing to do is wait until he is about to realize your decades long dream of putting a Tyrell on the Iron Throne, and then kill him in a plan that has virtually no chance of succeeding and will likely result imprisonment, if not execution, of virtually your entire family. The better plan from the Tyrell's perspective, is wait until they are married and Margaery has produced at least one, and preferably several heirs to the Iron Throne, and then get rid of him quietly when all the Tyrells are safely back in their castles and Margaery can now rule as Queen Regent until her son comes of age. Lady O did not get to where she did by being stupid, and murdering Joffrey at the wedding is about the stupidest thing she would possibly do.