Could Eddard judge the Boltons for their crimes.

[Corvo the Crow]

10 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Ned would have executed the Lord of Bear Island for selling a few poachers as slaves. Robb threatened to hang the Greatjon for an oathbreaker if he withdrew his armies from his host. Robb also beheaded Lord Karstark for dishonoring him. Roose was concerned not to let the Starks learn about his exploits on his own lands.

Heck, just look what Tywin did to Houses Reyne and Tarbeck on his own lands, and that was only a few decades ago.

It is clear that a Lord Paramount has full power to exact whatever justice he deems fit on a vassal he is displeased with. The Iron Throne really doesn't seem to feature in any of these affairs.

Indeed

Quote

A Game of Thrones - Eddard XI 

"The lords of the Trident keep the king's peace," Ser Raymun Darry said. "The Lannisters have broken it. We ask leave to answer them, steel for steel. We ask justice for the smallfolk of Sherrer and Wendish Town and the Mummer's Ford."

"Edmure agrees, we must pay Gregor Clegane back his bloody coin," Ser Marq declared, "but old Lord Hoster commanded us to come here and beg the king's leave before we strike." 

Thank the gods for old Lord Hoster, then. Tywin Lannister was as much fox as lion. If indeed he'd sent Ser Gregor to burn and pillage—and Ned did not doubt that he had—he'd taken care to see that he rode under cover of night, without banners, in the guise of a common brigand. Should Riverrun strike back, Cersei and her father would insist that it had been the Tullys who broke the king's peace, not the Lannisters. The gods only knew what Robert would believe.

To me, it seems throne only comes to play when it's between two direct vassals as in the case above.

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

On 20/03/2018 at 11:12 PM, Rosetta Stone said:

Making them run naked and hunting them is just a technicality. 

I hope to the gods you're never on a jury!

On 20/03/2018 at 11:12 PM, Rosetta Stone said:

If he had the right to kill them then it doesn't matter how he did it.  If there is a law that says "a highborn can kill his peasants as long as he doesn't strip them naked and make them run?" then Ned Stark can arrest Ramsay and hold him for judgment.  

There would be no such right. As others have said, we know that Roose was scared of the Rickard Stark finding out about his own escapades, which were nowhere near as heinous as Ramsay's. The lords have a right/duty to enforce the king's peace, which means they can order people executed for breaking the law, that doesn't give them carte blanche to do what they like to the people on their lands.

However, they will probably get away with an awful lot, due to lack of scrutiny. Ramsay and Roose are proof of that, as is the Mountain, who clearly gets up to dodgy business when no-one's looking. 

[Targaryen Restoration]

7 hours ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

Roose would give up Ramsay if it got to that point.  He would become heirless (but that's better than headless).

Better heirless than hairless!  Cuz there's no one more desperate than a man losing his hair.  

 

[Corvo the Crow]

On 23.03.2018 at 0:42 AM, Targaryen Restoration said:

Better heirless than hairless!  Cuz there's no one more desperate than a man losing his hair.  

 

Stannis? Roose is already hairless though and heirless.

[TheThreeEyedCow]

On 20/03/2018 at 7:10 PM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

No he doesn't. He doesn't swallow whatever lie that he's told. If he did he would've bought Pycelle's kindly old man spell, or really never got ahead in his investigations. He at this point was highly biased against the lanisters(rightfully so), and thus willingly to believe whatever insidious accusation leveled at them. Not to say he had nothing to go on. 

Ok. Ned doesn't pathologically believe everything he's told by everyone all of the time. We see this in chapter one with the NW deserter, Gared. 

But he is reasonably easy to manipulate so long as you're not his sworn enemy. Which Roose - in a way - is. 

Should one of his own trusted lords of told him that Roose's bastard was terrorizing Lady Hornwood he would of acted as swiftly as he did against The Mountain.   

[Skahaz mo Kandaq]

On 3/19/2018 at 10:15 AM, bel said:

Supposedly there is no war or winter. Could Eddard judge and condem Ramsay for the rapes and murders and possibly Roose for covering his crimes?

From what Manderly told Davos from time to time a woman will escape him, reach White Harbor and tell them what happened.

Would the word of a few women be enough to put the Boltons to trial? Would the other lords of the North support a desicion to go to war against the Dreadfort or would they pressure Eddard to back off for lack of evidence?

Eddard lost no time to condemn Clegane for attacking the Riverlands but that was a much different situation. Someone who could only be Gregor, was attacking the lands of other lords. It was one of those situations that could lead to large scale fightings. It was something essential. But in Ramsay's case it was just about some of his father's subjects. There was no lord with direct knowledge or interest to testify against him.

Were those girls Bolton smallfolk?  Ramsay is sick but is it against the king's laws to do what that sicko did to his girls?  Ramsay can be judged immoral but we have to question whether he broke any laws.

[UnFit Finlay]

27 minutes ago, Skahaz mo Kandaq said:

Were those girls Bolton smallfolk?  Ramsay is sick but is it against the king's laws to do what that sicko did to his girls?  Ramsay can be judged immoral but we have to question whether he broke any laws.

Laws are flexible in that kind of society. It's all about whether you're powerful enough to get away with breaking them. Look at the kind of crap Aerys did? Or even Tywin and his troops when they took King's Landing.

Ultimately the King decides whether something is right or wrong and, in this case, it's Robert's best mate vs some bloke. Now if *Joffrey* was King, it'd be another matter all together. Ramsay might even end up with a new hunting buddy.

[Son of Man]

2 hours ago, UnFit Finlay said:

Ultimately the King decides whether something is right or wrong and, in this case, it's Robert's best mate vs some bloke. Now if *Joffrey* was King, it'd be another matter all together. Ramsay might even end up with a new hunting buddy.

There is some truth to this.  Tywin pulled his massacre of the Tarbecks and the Reynes during the time of King Aerys 2.  It raised a lot of eyebrows but the king didn't seem to mind it.  

I believe Ned would send Ramsay to the wall.  After all, he's only a bastard.  By the way, those small folk were not Ramsay's to torment.  Ramsay was not the lord, nor the heir to the Dreadfort at the time.  But say it was Domeric Bolton who was chasing those girls for sport.  Would Ned condemn a fellow highborn for a crime against his small folk?

[UnFit Finlay]

18 hours ago, Son of Man said:

There is some truth to this.  Tywin pulled his massacre of the Tarbecks and the Reynes during the time of King Aerys 2.  It raised a lot of eyebrows but the king didn't seem to mind it.  

I believe Ned would send Ramsay to the wall.  After all, he's only a bastard.  By the way, those small folk were not Ramsay's to torment.  Ramsay was not the lord, nor the heir to the Dreadfort at the time.  But say it was Domeric Bolton who was chasing those girls for sport.  Would Ned condemn a fellow highborn for a crime against his small folk?

I think he would. The Starks don't play politics well. Jorah fought in two wars for Ned and Ned was still going to execute him for his treatment of some common poachers. Same with Robb. Rickard Karstark lost two sons fighting Robb's war, Robb couldn't afford to lose his men AND you could argue that Rickard was out of his mind with grief when he killed the two Lannister prisoners. Yet Robb executed him all the same. Because it was the right thing to do.

If the Starks are willing to condemn some of their most loyal Bannermen for crimes against poachers and enemy combatants then someone hunting their small folk like animals has no chance of mercy.

[Varysblackfyre321]

On March 22, 2018 at 9:15 AM, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

I hope to the gods you're never on a jury!

There would be no such right. As others have said, we know that Roose was scared of the Rickard Stark finding out about his own escapades, which were nowhere near as heinous as Ramsay's. The lords have a right/duty to enforce the king's peace, which means they can order people executed for breaking the law, that doesn't give them carte blanche to do what they like to the people on their lands.

However, they will probably get away with an awful lot, due to lack of scrutiny. Ramsay and Roose are proof of that, as is the Mountain, who clearly gets up to dodgy business when no-one's looking. 

. It is up to them to decide when someone has broken the law and the ways of punishment that they could legally enact is almost limitless. Ramsey and Roose never really use that justification for why their sadism.

[Anck Su Namun]

6 hours ago, UnFit Finlay said:

I think he would. The Starks don't play politics well. Jorah fought in two wars for Ned and Ned was still going to execute him for his treatment of some common poachers. Same with Robb. Rickard Karstark lost two sons fighting Robb's war, Robb couldn't afford to lose his men AND you could argue that Rickard was out of his mind with grief when he killed the two Lannister prisoners. Yet Robb executed him all the same. Because it was the right thing to do.

If the Starks are willing to condemn some of their most loyal Bannermen for crimes against poachers and enemy combatants then someone hunting their small folk like animals has no chance of mercy.

It was the right thing to do at first, but it became wrong when Robb allowed Catelyn off the hook for her crime.  

[The Sunland Lord]

5 hours ago, Anck Su Namun said:

It was the right thing to do at first, but it became wrong when Robb allowed Catelyn off the hook for her crime.  

There is no man more accursed than the kinslayer, in the eyes of Gods and men.

[Kandrax]

On 26.3.2018. at 8:11 AM, Corvo the Crow said:

Roose is already hairless

That is Fanfic

[Varysblackfyre321]

3 hours ago, The Sunland Lord said:

There is no man more accursed than the kinslayer, in the eyes of Gods and men.

He needn't swing a sword to take her head; he could just give her to Karstark to execute to avoid the cardinal sin. Or exiled her. Or took a body part. Or condemned her to the silent sisters. Robb personally killing her way by no means the only way of punishment.

[Lollygag]

2 hours ago, Kandrax said:

That is Fanfic

Think @Corvo the Crow means this?

ACOK Arya X

She brought Lord Bolton a damp washcloth to wipe down his soft hairless body. "I will send a letter of my own," he told the onetime maester.

(I unfortunately began wondering at possible circumstances which would lead someone to write fanfic about Roose being hairless. I don't advise going there.) 

[UnFit Finlay]

14 hours ago, Anck Su Namun said:

It was the right thing to do at first, but it became wrong when Robb allowed Catelyn off the hook for her crime.  

It happened the other way around. In fact it was Catelyn's releasing Jaime that led to the murder of the Squires.

In this case (and it's a theme throughout the series) right and wrong depends on the reader. However I think it's unquestionable that Robb saw the murder of two unarmed prisoners as a bigger stain on his honour than the treasonous release of a prisoner. With that in mind, I think it's fair to say that both he and Ned would've dealt with Ramsay in a similar fashion.

[Kandrax]

4 hours ago, Lollygag said:

unfortunately began wondering at possible circumstances which would lead someone to write fanfic about Roose being hairless. I don't advise going there.) 

I was talking about show, though even there he some hair on head.

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

On 28/03/2018 at 0:43 AM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

It is up to them to decide when someone has broken the law and the ways of punishment that they could legally enact is almost limitless.

The "almost" is important there. Jorah was about to lose his head for selling poachers into slavery, so clearly that wasn't within a lord's power. We don't know what the actual law is in the 7K, but I imagine lords are given the right to enact certain laws established in a proscribed way. We know that execution and sending people to the wall are used throughout the 7K, and castration for rape seems to be standard. There may be others where the lord has some wiggle room (Lord Tarly seems to be very creative in Maidenpool), but there must be limitations, or Jorah wouldn't have been in line for execution.

[Rosetta Stone]

On 3/22/2018 at 0:15 PM, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

There would be no such right. As others have said, we know that Roose was scared of the Rickard Stark finding out about his own escapades, which were nowhere near as heinous as Ramsay's. The lords have a right/duty to enforce the king's peace, which means they can order people executed for breaking the law, that doesn't give them carte blanche to do what they like to the people on their lands.

However, they will probably get away with an awful lot, due to lack of scrutiny. Ramsay and Roose are proof of that, as is the Mountain, who clearly gets up to dodgy business when no-one's looking. 

The Lord's Right to the First Night is expressly forbidden by law.  Rickard was duty bound to enforce it.  However, is there a law that forbids a lord to execute his peasants in a cruel manner?  That is what I am getting at.  A lord can and do pass judgment on the smallfolk who breaks the law.  But the manner of how that execution is to be carried out may be on the lord's discretion.  Stannis burned his men for cannibalism.   Ramsay could get away with it if those girls were guilty of breaking the law.  Serving watered down beer is just one example.