Jump to content

Mance Rayder violated guest rights!


Wolf's Bane

Recommended Posts

On April 21, 2018 at 3:57 PM, Lord Varys said:

By the way, Tom Seven is also breaking guest right if he ends up informing Catelyn on the movements and weak spots of Riverrun under Emmon Frey and Genna Lannister. If the man participates in the retaking of Riverrun and is also involved in the (likely very cruel) murders of Emmon and Genna, he'll be as bad - or nearly as bad - as many of the Freys who played their (small) part in the Red Wedding.

Now this is an interesting idea to which I could see happening-the BWB were always self-righteous hypocrites(goodish men at the start of the series to be sure-but still self-righteous hypocrites) and them having committed the same sin they are murdering people over in the Riverlands falls within how they've behaved. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Catelyn repeatdly grills into Robb's head to take any food or drink the Freys offer for it makes them guests. Davos sighs with relief at being offered food at the sisters because he until that moment guest right couldnt be his protection. Mance himself offers jon some meat granting him the protection. Food being offered is critical..

Agreed, and just to expand a bit: When Tyrion arrived back at Winterfell after visiting the Wall, Robb received him with his naked sword laid across his knees, to show that guest right was not extended to Tyrion. Likewise, Wyman Manderley is extremely careful to inform Davos that he gave parting gifts to the visiting Freys, the purpose of which was to explicitly indicate that guest right had ended.

It seems that guest right protection isn't assumed to be automatically given upon arrival in the host's house. Specific gestures are expected to be made first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to agree with the OP.  Jon had his choice to execute Mance and chose not to even though he had a duty to kill a deserter and an oathbreaker.  And Mance rescued fake Arya because he thought the girl was Arya. He was operating under Jon's instructions.  You could say Jon gave Mance a non-existent leash when he set him loose to get his sister.  Indirectly, Jon is to blame for the murder his wildlings did inside the castle walls.  Breaking guest rights is not the worse of it though.  That's like worrying about something trivial when you compare to how it affected the NW.  Jon threw his brothers under the bus.  He had no right to send Mance to fetch Arya.  He gave up that right when he took the black.  The Starks are no longer his family and no longer his concern.  

If Jon had only made the right choice and minded his own business the watch would have been in better shape to prepare for the Others.  He should have known the risk to the Watch if the Boltons found out what he was up to.  And if he didn't then he's the biggest idiot in the story.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/18/2018 at 8:32 PM, Adam Yozza said:

Yes. That doesn't mean it's necesarily right for someone to steal the thief's car; that would depend on the circumstances. But yes I would consider him a bit hypocritical if he then complained about it.

Hypocrite or not, it doesn't change the fact that Mance Rayder broke guest rights while on a mission from Jon.  So the argument from the OP goes that Jon being the lord commander who coerced Mance Rayder to get his sister away from her husband is indirectly guilty of the violation of guest rights.  I must say, I think the OP is right.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Here's Looking At You, Kid said:

I have to agree with the OP.  Jon had his choice to execute Mance and chose not to even though he had a duty to kill a deserter and an oathbreaker. 

Oh, you agree with the OP who doesn't say ONE word about Jon? What a joke. 

And , AGAIN, Mance was Stannis prisoner, not Jon's. Is that so difficult to apprehend?

You wouldn't post such nonsense if you've made the effort to read beyond the (nonsensical) OP…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually I don’t remember Jon sending him out, I think it was Mel and he was Mel’s prisoner. Jon had thought Arya was by Long Lake and not Winterfell.

Besides, Jeyne was a willing person to leave, so you can’t kidnap someone that wants to go. My memory is a bit fuzzy on this though.

And I don’t believe Mel nor Jon told him to go kill people in Winterfell, that was Mance

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Tagganaro said:

This is a bit OT but I think everyone is pretty much aware of Robb's precarious position with the Freys.  That's why Cat is so desperate to have him eat food the second he gets there so guest right is activated.  Guest right seems pretty sacred among the Lords of Westeros, hence you get people responding in disgust to the Red Wedding and the Freys in general.  And I think it's beyond everyone's scope of conception that the Freys would violate guest right like that.  

Guest right is very sacred to the First Men in the North, but it has less importance in the south. What makes the Red Wedding so heinous a crime is more the scale of it, not the fact that a traitor and rebel was betrayal and put down. That happens all the time.

For instance, Tyrion would also have broken 'guest right' when he (allegedly) murdered Joffrey at his wedding feast, yet nobody actually cares to add that whole thing to the list of crimes he has committed - regicide and kingslaying are more than enough.

The actions of the Freys and Boltons are not exactly popular all across Westeros but mostly it is the people affected by this treason - the Riverlanders and the Northmen - that care about it. You see no outrage over this in Dorne, the Vale, the Stormlands, or the Reach.

Come to think of it - would we all say Walder Frey was a decent guy and acting nicely if he had gone through with the guest right thing and not staged a Red Wedding but postponed Robb's murder - as Tywin apparently thought they would do it - until some later time? An arrow gone wrong in the forest, a hunting accident, something of that sort? That would make Walder Frey (and the people executing his plans) as fair a guy as Lord Wyman Manderly who also professed unity and friendship with the Freys visiting him and then, most likely, stood there and watched gleefully while his men were butchering them after they had received their gifts (it wouldn't surprise me if he had told them that he would bake them into pies and feed them to Fat Walda and the Boltons - not to mention gorging himself on their remains).

We can all agree that killing/attacking a host of guest while they are defenseless and don't expect an attack is a vile crime, but I actually daresay this extends to all context where they are defenseless and think you are a friend or ally, never mind whether you are in guest-host relationship or not.

It actually shows the moral bankruptcy of the world George has created when a man like Lord Wyman is considered to be less of a criminal than Lord Walder (insofar as we are talking about how he betrayed people who trusted him - not in relation to the scale of the murdered people, of course).

10 hours ago, Elaena Targaryen said:

Was guest right clearly broken though Lord Varys? I'm not sure that we have quite enough textual evidence to be positive, when I give the matter further thought. I agree, kings are at the top of the pyramid. The lords are above ordinary men too, except for their liege. Mance was posing as a common bard.

I don't think a high lord would ever condescend to give a peasant or servant guest right. I couldn't imagine the audacity of a commoner expecting it either. Castles aren't hotels where anyone can stay just for asking, the smallfolk stay when they provide a service and that's a different, subservient, contract. Lowborn don't get to enjoy the company of the elite while dining, they serve or entertain while the lords feast. 

I could be wrong I suppose, but I just can't reconcile the privilege of guest status and the expectation of obedient service.

Sorry, but it seems pretty clear that this is guest right when you actually take a look at the Rat Cook. He was just the cook at the Nightfort, not its commander (or the Lord Commander of the Night's Watch). As such he, personally, would have never been the host of the Andal king, yet he was still punished by the gods for his breaking of guest right.

If a mere servant of a lord - a cook - can break guest right, then a traveling bard, teacher, freerider, man-at-arms, sellsword, etc. - taking temporary service at a keep (or just attending a lordly wedding there) is, of course, also under the protection of guest right.

We see this in the Dunk & Egg stories. Dunk is both the sworn sword and the the guest of Ser Eustace Osgrey, and he realizes this when he decides to continue to serve him - even after he has betrayed his trust by sending away his levies - because he has eaten at his keep in the morning and thus still owes him service.

We also see how Dunk & Egg are welcomed as guests at Whitewalls. They are not guests that were invited nor guests the lord and his staff really look forward hosting, but they are there and they are guests.

And it is quite clear that Maynard Plumm/Bloodraven and his dwarfs also broke guest right there. They entered the castle under false pretenses and stole Lord Butterwell's dragon egg.

Quote

That's another interesting thing, what is a punishable crime? Is breaking guest right a crime?

According to the story of the Rat Cook it is a crime punishable by the gods themselves. I'd say in legal terms it is a factor that worsens any crime committed - you cannot only break guest right, you have to do something that makes it evident that guest right is broken.

It would begin, one assumes, by insulting another guest or the host, inciting and committing violent actions (a drunken brawl, say), followed by seducing/raping the lord's women (daughters, sisters, the wife), spying on the other guests and the host, stealing property of the host and other guests, attacking/severely injuring people, murdering people.

Most of those things would be crimes, too, without the guest right context, but doing those things under the protection of guest right would make it all viler crimes.

Quote

I do wonder if Marsh and co. committed petty treason though. ASoIaF has high treason and in RL this would qualify as petty, lords can't have subordinates betraying their superiors. Lord Varys, you are more familiar with Westeros history than I am, do you know of any other possible petty treason?

From my point of view Marsh and his co-conspirators are justified in their actions because they put down a false Lord Commander of the Night's Watch who had just publicly broken his vows (when he decided he would abandon his post and march against Winterfell, alone if necessary).

That basically puts them in the same shoes as any loyal sworn brothers of the NW were when they were confronted with men like the Night's King, Runcel Hightower, etc. Some sure remained loyal to those men, others would have run away to join the lords and kings of the Seven Kingdoms (and the lands beyond the Wall, in the case of the Night's King) to end their rule.

9 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Catelyn repeatdly grills into Robb's head to take any food or drink the Freys offer for it makes them guests. Davos sighs with relief at being offered food at the sisters because he until that moment guest right couldnt be his protection. Mance himself offers jon some meat granting him the protection. Food being offered is critical..

Again, the people at Winterfell under Roose's rule did eat a lot of stuff there. Mance and his women especially, before they got around to murder the men or make plans to get 'Arya' out of the castle. And the idea that Roose doesn't know what guest right means - and doesn't make use of that fact - is, quite frankly, very unrealistic. We don't know what Roose talked to the various lords coming to Winterfell behind closed doors - in fact, Theon doesn't give us any scene depicting the arrival at Winterfell and the subsequent interactions there between Roose and the various lords.

And one should never over-emphasize the guest right thing, anyway. Food or not, Mance was on the verge of killing Jon when he learned that the boy had lied about Mormont's mission beyond the Wall, and Lord Borrell most definitely would have sold Davos to Cersei had it turned out the Lord Sunderland had found out that Davos was there before the man could leave, etc. It is up to a host to decide how long a guest remains a guest, and whether his status as a guest ends with him becoming either a prisoner or a corpse (baked into some pies).

8 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Now this is an interesting idea to which I could see happening-the BWB were always self-righteous hypocrites(goodish men at the start of the series to be sure-but still self-righteous hypocrites) and them having committed the same sin they are murdering people over in the Riverlands falls within how they've behaved. 

It is what I said above somewhere - anybody believing the good guys will win this war by remaining good guys is fooling himself or herself. Wyman Manderly is a great example of this - I found it great how he revealed what he is actually about - but I would not want to share a meal or be on amiable terms with a man as corrupt and insidious as he is.

I'm also looking forward to what Catelyn is going to do to Emmon and Genna (and I really want to see her make Jaime watch, just as he watched back then when Aerys II killed Brandon and Rickard) and all the other Freys and Lannisters in the Riverlands. But I'm also aware that those will be very, very cruel things, things that might go well beyond anything we expect to do 'good guys' - or even formally good guys.

Also keep in mind that people sticking to any proper rules of conduct - people not willing to do whatever it takes, no matter the cost to any innocent bystanders, their families, or even themselves - won't stand a chance against men like Euron Greyjoy.

Not to mention the Others. If you can't run away and don't want yourself or your children to become blue-eyed zombies killing other human beings killing your family and burning their corpses and jumping on the pyre alive to ensure you burn, too, might suddenly look like a very smart idea.

There might be a few people left, in the end, who remember how it was to be human - and who might be able to cling to that memory and rebuild a better world out of the ashes, but even such people will likely be forced to do very cruel and ugly things to survive and win the war.

8 hours ago, The Ned's Little Girl said:

Agreed, and just to expand a bit: When Tyrion arrived back at Winterfell after visiting the Wall, Robb received him with his naked sword laid across his knees, to show that guest right was not extended to Tyrion. Likewise, Wyman Manderley is extremely careful to inform Davos that he gave parting gifts to the visiting Freys, the purpose of which was to explicitly indicate that guest right had ended.

The steel thing was just very bad form on Robb's part, as Tyrion pointed out - not to mention bordering on treason considering who Tyrion Lannister was. Refusing to grant guest right to the king's brother-in-law could be seen as refusing to grant guest right to the king himself.

8 hours ago, The Ned's Little Girl said:

It seems that guest right protection isn't assumed to be automatically given upon arrival in the host's house. Specific gestures are expected to be made first.

Which were likely all upheld in the case we are talking about here. People do eat and drink both at Barrowton and at Winterfell - first under the auspices of Lady Barbrey Dustin and Lord Roose Bolton, the Warden of the North, and then later under the auspices of Lord Roose Bolton, the Warden of the North, and Lord Ramsay Bolton, the Lord of the Hornwood and the Lord of Winterfell (and Lady Arya Stark, the Lady of Winterfell, of course).

You basically aren't hanging out on somebody's wedding or in some lord's hall in the middle of a war zone if you aren't the lord's guest. That doesn't happen. You are not *just there*.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Guest right is very sacred to the First Men in the North, but it has less importance in the south. What makes the Red Wedding so heinous a crime is more the scale of it, not the fact that a traitor and rebel was betrayal and put down. That happens all the time.

I agree the scale is what makes it heinous. Also, that it was done at a wedding. Robb and Edmure went there in good faith to unite their houses with the Freys in a formal alliance, and were murdered during the bedding. The whole package of the Red Wedding was seen to have crossed many lines.

While guest right is considered more important in the North, I also get the impression that the smallfolk seem to hold it dearer than the lords. Like the knight's vows, as we see in The Hedge Knight, the smallfolk might still value those lords that actually live by the rules they're supposed to live by, and dislike those that don't.

Qyburn points out that the smallfolk are disapproving of Walder frey's "crime", and Everyman Davos is clearly appalled. I think the idea of massacring people at a wedding was widely disapproved of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Nowy Tends said:

btw, Ramsay and his henchmen slaughter a sellsword who made an unfortunate remark about Stannis… The poor guy certainly knows how the Boltons respect guest rights!

I don't know if killing an underling is technically breaking guest rights. The guy was under their command, and if Ramsey decides to "execute" him, however barbaric the manner, then that's within his rights as Lord of Winterfell.

The whole "guest right" thing isn't necessarily strictly adhered to by everyone of course, I doubt Ramsey or Roose give a damn. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

I agree the scale is what makes it heinous. Also, that it was done at a wedding. Robb and Edmure went there in good faith to unite their houses with the Freys in a formal alliance, and were murdered during the bedding. The whole package of the Red Wedding was seen to have crossed many lines.

Sure, it is the scale of it that makes it as deplorable as it is. But the difference between the Frey/Bolton conspiracy and the actions of Olenna Redwyne and her co-conspirators is just the size.

2 hours ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

While guest right is considered more important in the North, I also get the impression that the smallfolk seem to hold it dearer than the lords. Like the knight's vows, as we see in The Hedge Knight, the smallfolk might still value those lords that actually live by the rules they're supposed to live by, and dislike those that don't.

That is pretty clear, too, although I'd not say that people in the south are as disgusted by the Red Wedding as the Northmen are. I mean, there actually are Riverlords who work with the Lannisters and Freys.

The kind of resentment a man like Lord Wyman harbors against the Freys and Boltons seems to have another dimension. While I find it deplorable what he does to the three Freys I certainly do understand why he acts the way he does. He has a very good motivation for his actions - certainly a much better motivation than Walder or Roose had for the Red Wedding (Walder I understand up to a point; but Roose is simply a very cold fish simply turning against Robb because he and his house can greatly profit from the outcome).

2 hours ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

Qyburn points out that the smallfolk are disapproving of Walder frey's "crime", and Everyman Davos is clearly appalled. I think the idea of massacring people at a wedding was widely disapproved of.

Sure, you simply don't kill people at a joyous occasion like a wedding. And it is quite clear in AFfC that King Tommen could have done much and more to better his reputation among his subjects if his administration had indeed followed Qyburn's advice and punished some Freys for the Red Wedding, giving the whole thing at least the impression that justice was done and mattered.

And it wouldn't have been complete hypocrisy, either. Tywin wanted Robb Stark dead. He didn't command - or expect - Walder and Roose to arrange a mass slaughter at a wedding. If they had wanted it, they could have punished them rather severely for the things the Iron Throne did not want the Freys and Boltons to do.

If Cersei had had the brains to focus on the Tyrell alliance and make it work she could even have had the power and resources to dare risk antagonize the Freys and Boltons. Their actions made them not exactly popular, and the Iron Throne should have actually have been able to win some sympathies among the former followers of Robb Stark if King Tommen had actually taken it upon himself to dispense justice in the matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

I don't know if killing an underling is technically breaking guest rights. The guy was under their command, and if Ramsey decides to "execute" him, however barbaric the manner, then that's within his rights as Lord of Winterfell.

The whole "guest right" thing isn't necessarily strictly adhered to by everyone of course, I doubt Ramsey or Roose give a damn. 

The idea here would likely be that a guest doing stuff like that - undermining morale, etc. - has himself broken guest right and can longer protection on those grounds.

Guest right is only something that extends to people who actually behave like guests. Which is why it is actually not very likely that a guy harboring his outlaw son or brother - who is searched by the king for grievous crimes - can extend guest right to such a person and expect that this is universally accepted by the society these people live in.

Even if you take in a guest in good faith - once you are informed he is a criminal you are likely expected to throw him out of your house or arrest him in the name of the king.

People have been citing the example of Lord Lyman Lannister extending guest right to Prince Aegon and Princess Rhaena, but neither of them actually was a criminal. They were merely the eldest children and heirs of the late King Aenys, and that's not a crime. Even the usurper King Maegor wouldn't have had a good pretext demanding that his nephew and niece be punished while they hadn't yet done anything against him.

But proper outlaw logic in medieval context usually includes that any person aiding an outlaw becomes an outlaw himself/herself, which is usually the reason why such people are not likely to be harbored by their highborn relations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Sure, it is the scale of it that makes it as deplorable as it is. But the difference between the Frey/Bolton conspiracy and the actions of Olenna Redwyne and her co-conspirators is just the size.

Agreed. And the subtlety. Olenna was savvy enough not to be so flagrant.

13 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

I'd not say that people in the south are as disgusted by the Red Wedding as the Northmen are. I mean, there actually are Riverlords who work with the Lannisters and Freys.

Well, there are Northern lords working with the Boltons and Freys as well, and lords like Piper are hardly jumping for joy at having to be present at the siege. I think both the Northern lords and the River Lords who have bent the knee would probably turn on the Lannisters and Freys given half the chance, though it appears the Northern lords are more actively conspiring. Others have the alternative of Stannis to rally around, which the River Lords lack.

That being said, the symbolism of the breaking of guest right is obviously a bigger deal for the Northerners, I completely agree.

17 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

And it is quite clear in AFfC that King Tommen could have done much and more to better his reputation among his subjects if his administration had indeed followed Qyburn's advice and punished some Freys for the Red Wedding, giving the whole thing at least the impression that justice was done and mattered.

And it wouldn't have been complete hypocrisy, either. Tywin wanted Robb Stark dead. He didn't command - or expect - Walder and Roose to arrange a mass slaughter at a wedding. If they had wanted it, they could have punished them rather severely for the things the Iron Throne did not want the Freys and Boltons to do.

If Cersei had had the brains to focus on the Tyrell alliance and make it work she could even have had the power and resources to dare risk antagonize the Freys and Boltons. Their actions made them not exactly popular, and the Iron Throne should have actually have been able to win some sympathies among the former followers of Robb Stark if King Tommen had actually taken it upon himself to dispense justice in the matter.

This I'm not so certain on. The Iron Throne is very reliant on the Freys to control both the Riverlands and the North, where they have enough enemies already. I actually think the plan Cersei and Qyburn came up with - wait for Walder to croak, then allow his heir (who is Edwyn at this stage) to get rid of some enemies by blaming them for the Red Wedding was one of the more sensible notions those two nutters cooked up. It saves having to take on the entire Frey family. 

You're right in that, if the Lannisters and the Tyrells were more united, they would have less need of the Freys and the Boltons, but both are still very useful. Particularly in the North. Tywin's plan of letting Roose, Stannis and the Ironborn slog it out through the winter, then mop up afterwards, was sensible. Having to send a Lannister/Tyrell army into that mess would have been needlessly costly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The idea here would likely be that a guest doing stuff like that - undermining morale, etc. - has himself broken guest right and can longer protection on those grounds.

I don't think he's really a guest at all - he's in their service. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

According to the story of the Rat Cook it is a crime punishable by the gods themselves. I'd say in legal terms it is a factor that worsens any crime committed - you cannot only break guest right, you have to do something that makes it evident that guest right is broken.

Someone posted on reddit a theory that story was originally anti-andal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Sorry,

Thank you for your reply Lord Varys. I did worry that I've been reading too many historical novels lately and that would influence my opinion. I hoped you could site some in-story cases but I still find it unclear.

We are all spinning our wheels in this thread but does anyone in Winterfell consider the murders to be breaking guest right? Hosteen accused Wyman of ordering murders not of breaking guest right.

“My lord,” boomed Hosteen Frey. “We know the man who did this. Killed this boy and all the rest. Not by his own hand, no. He is too fat and craven to do his own killing. But by his word.” He turned to Wyman Manderly. “Do you deny it?”

55 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

but it seems pretty clear that this is guest right when you actually take a look at the Rat Cook. He was just the cook at the Nightfort, not its commander (or the Lord Commander of the Night's Watch). As such he, personally, would have never been the host of the Andal king, yet he was still punished by the gods for his breaking of guest right.

The Rat Cook is a legend, a moral tale; Guest right is sacred. A simple cook slaying a royal guest, tsk tsk. A king is the avatar of the gods, see the gods punishment. See it's proof the Watch should take no part. And so on.

Even if it was based on truth we don't know who the cook was, I doubt it but, he could have been the Lord Commander. He could have been the host, since it reads to me that the king was coming to check on and gloat over the cook. It was also said the cook had a right to vengeance against the king and only a high lord would presume that. We don't even know that the guests were royal, or who this king was, it could have been Wat with his brother Wat.

55 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

If a mere servant of a lord - a cook - can break guest right, then a traveling bard, teacher, freerider, man-at-arms, sellsword, etc. - taking temporary service at a keep (or just attending a lordly wedding there) is, of course, also under the protection of guest right.

I disagree that it's so black and white. Mere attendance I'll grant you, I need to research more.

I just don't think if Roose offers guest right that it means all of his retainers become proxy hosts, or hired help are considered guests. They don't need to since they cannot disobey their lord, they would treat his lordship's person and guests well anyway, most are oathsworn. The lord is responsible for their behavior. Service has it's own separate contract including shelter and protection, temporary or not. What commoner would dishonor any lord, or disrespect them?

55 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

We see this in the Dunk & Egg stories. Dunk is both the sworn sword and the the guest of Ser Eustace Osgrey, and he realizes this when he decides to continue to serve him - even after he has betrayed his trust by sending away his levies - because he has eaten at his keep in the morning and thus still owes him service.

Sorry, but you are conflating matters here to support your view. Dunk ate Osgrey's food as a form of payment. Osgrey owes Dunk meals under terms of service. Guest status does not enter into the equation. Decency was a factor for Dunk staying, not status.

He ate four of the eggs. Ser Eustace owed him that much, as he saw it.

“I slept beneath your roof, and ate your eggs this morning. I owe you some service still. I won’t go slinking off with my tail between my legs. My sword’s still here.”

This is Cat and Brienne

"Then I am yours, my lady. Your liege man, or . . . whatever you would have me be. I will shield your back and keep your counsel and give my life for yours, if need be. I swear it by the old gods and the new."

"And I vow that you shall always have a place by my hearth and meat and mead at my table, and pledge to ask no service of you that might bring you into dishonor. I swear it by the old gods and the new. Arise."

55 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

We also see how Dunk & Egg are welcomed as guests at Whitewalls. They are not guests that were invited nor guests the lord and his staff really look forward hosting, but they are there and they are guests.

And it is quite clear that Maynard Plumm/Bloodraven and his dwarfs also broke guest right there. They entered the castle under false pretenses and stole Lord Butterwell's dragon egg.

Yep, I am totally going to have to read The Mystery Knight again, it's been several years since I have and guest right was the last thing on my mind. It may be the best precedent, with a lowborn pov at a wedding of the highborn, not to mention the subtle rebellion.

55 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

According to the story of the Rat Cook it is a crime punishable by the gods themselves. I'd say in legal terms it is a factor that worsens any crime committed - you cannot only break guest right, you have to do something that makes it evident that guest right is broken.

It would begin, one assumes, by insulting another guest or the host, inciting and committing violent actions (a drunken brawl, say), followed by seducing/raping the lord's women (daughters, sisters, the wife), spying on the other guests and the host, stealing property of the host and other guests, attacking/severely injuring people, murdering people.

Most of those things would be crimes, too, without the guest right context, but doing those things under the protection of guest right would make it all viler crimes.

Yes, it seems breaking guest right is it's own violation separate from the act that breaks it. House Frey seems accused of breaking guest right by betraying House Stark while simultaneously being called murders. In legal terms murder is punishable by men but is the same true for breaking guest right? I don't think so.

Per the Rat Cook fable the gods hold only the violator responsible. The cook must have some host status but in what context? Who offered the protection? Was it a blanket coverage from the organization? Was the Lord Commander punished or shunned? 

Look at the Red Wedding, who is blamed? The Freys, not the Freys and minions. It happened on the orders of the presiding lords. Is that who the gods would blame? Who is the host, who broke custom, who killed? I don't find it all so clear cut but we know who society blames. 

Was this breaking guest right? Guest against guest? 

Ser Hosteen Frey ripped his longsword from its scabbard and leapt toward Wyman Manderly. The Lord of White Harbor tried to jerk away, but the tabletop pinned him to his chair. The blade slashed through three of his four chins in a spray of bright red blood. Lady Walda gave a shriek and clutched at her lord husband's arm. "Stop," Roose Bolton shouted. "Stop this madness." His own men rushed forward as the Manderlys vaulted over the benches to get at the Freys. One lunged at Ser Hosteen with a dagger, but the big knight pivoted and took his arm off at the shoulder. Lord Wyman pushed to his feet, only to collapse. Old Lord Locke was shouting for a maester as Manderly flopped on the floor like a clubbed walrus in a spreading pool of blood. Around him dogs fought over sausages.

It took two score Dreadfort spearmen to part the combatants and put an end to the carnage. By that time six White Harbor men and two Freys lay dead upon the floor. A dozen more were wounded and one of the Bastard's Boys, Luton, was dying noisily, crying for his mother as he tried to shove a fistful of slimy entrails back through a gaping belly wound. Lord Ramsay silenced him, yanking a spear from one of Steelshanks's men and driving it down through Luton's chest. Even then the rafters still rang with shouts and prayers and curses, the shrieks of terrified horses and the growls of Ramsay's bitches. Steelshanks Walton had to slam the butt of his spear against the floor a dozen times before the hall quieted enough for Roose Bolton to be heard.

55 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

From my point of view Marsh and his co-conspirators are justified in their actions because they put down a false Lord Commander of the Night's Watch who had just publicly broken his vows (when he decided he would abandon his post and march against Winterfell, alone if necessary).

That basically puts them in the same shoes as any loyal sworn brothers of the NW were when they were confronted with men like the Night's King, Runcel Hightower, etc. Some sure remained loyal to those men, others would have run away to join the lords and kings of the Seven Kingdoms (and the lands beyond the Wall, in the case of the Night's King) to end their rule.

I really should decide where I stand on Jon but... even though I like him he's boring. I may have to since I do not believe Marsh was legally justified. The Watch is military order, you can't kill your commander with impunity.

Warden, in story, means war leader. The LC is like a Warden of the Wall. But, the difference is the Watch has a voting system, there could be alternatives to murderous mutiny.

Wasn't there also something about Cersei trying to get someone to kill Jon on the sly too? I really should look into this more....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Elaena Targaryen said:

I really should decide where I stand on Jon but... even though I like him he's boring.

I like the idea that being boring is punishable by multiple stabbings. :-)

8 minutes ago, Elaena Targaryen said:

I may have to since I do not believe Marsh was legally justified. The Watch is military order, you can't kill your commander with impunity.

He's on legally dodgy ground, but as has been pointed out, so was Jon. While I think Jon's actions were justifiable, he was stepping outside of the law the moment he decided to make war on the Boltons, and Jon knew that. 

Both Jon and Marsh made their decisions - Jon decided that saving his sister was more important than keeping his vows. Marsh decided that preserving the Watch was more important than loyalty to one Lord Commander. Both are morally defensible in my opinion.

12 minutes ago, Elaena Targaryen said:

the Watch has a voting system, there could be alternatives to murderous mutiny.

They don't have regular elections or a recall system though. Once elected a Lord Commander serves until death. I see their tradition of election as a way of avoiding external imposition of a Lord Commander, by the Starks or the Iron Throne, not as a democratic principle. 

13 minutes ago, Elaena Targaryen said:

Wasn't there also something about Cersei trying to get someone to kill Jon on the sly too?

Yes, her genius plan was that Osney Kettleblack, after "admitting" to banging Margaery, to take the black, and go North with a hundred men, then remove Jon from command. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Guest right is very sacred to the First Men in the North, but it has less importance in the south. What makes the Red Wedding so heinous a crime is more the scale of it, not the fact that a traitor and rebel was betrayal and put down. That happens all the time.

For instance, Tyrion would also have broken 'guest right' when he (allegedly) murdered Joffrey at his wedding feast, yet nobody actually cares to add that whole thing to the list of crimes he has committed - regicide and kingslaying are more than enough.

Maybe?  I'm not sure you can really say that Guest right is less important in the south, for example Doran Martell refuses unconditionally to harm Balon Swann while he's a guest of his due to Guest right.  There are numerous other instances of southern Lords invoking Guest right I think although I don't have them off the top of my head.  

I think in terms of the Red Wedding's heinousness, you can point to a whole number of things.  It's all heinous, and I don't think you can separate the scale from the audacity from the violence from the betrayal of Guest Right...it's all part of the Red Wedding's awfulness.

Again, I'll say that I'm not sure Tyrion broke "guest right" in the Westerosi conception.  From what we know of it it only runs from host to the guest and not vice versa...I'll dare say that we have not seen a single instance of a guest being able to violate guest right...indeed you could argue it should be called "host right" if it actually exists.  In any case, we are in agreement that regicide, kingslaying, and kinslaying are more all-consuming in Tyrion's case and violation of guest right is low on that list.

Quote

The actions of the Freys and Boltons are not exactly popular all across Westeros but mostly it is the people affected by this treason - the Riverlanders and the Northmen - that care about it. You see no outrage over this in Dorne, the Vale, the Stormlands, or the Reach.

Well of course it's the people mainly affected by the Red Wedding that are most outraged by it...however that doesn't change the fact that it's still an outrageous thing to do, and we really have no perspective at all of the Stormlands and the Reach since we have no POVs there.  What we do know is that Guest right is still considered important enough in Dorne and the Vale for it to be observed by both Doran Martell and Littlefinger/the Lords Declarant.

Quote

Come to think of it - would we all say Walder Frey was a decent guy and acting nicely if he had gone through with the guest right thing and not staged a Red Wedding but postponed Robb's murder - as Tywin apparently thought they would do it - until some later time? An arrow gone wrong in the forest, a hunting accident, something of that sort? That would make Walder Frey (and the people executing his plans) as fair a guy as Lord Wyman Manderly who also professed unity and friendship with the Freys visiting him and then, most likely, stood there and watched gleefully while his men were butchering them after they had received their gifts (it wouldn't surprise me if he had told them that he would bake them into pies and feed them to Fat Walda and the Boltons - not to mention gorging himself on their remains).

Sure.  We don't have to like Walder Frey and we are not supposed to like him, everything about his personality and description is designed by GRRM to be loathsome.  But you can be sure that it'd be far less heinous of him to go about killing Robb in a way different from the Red Wedding.

Furthermore, I don't see where Manderley comes into this in terms of comparing the two.  Manderley's violence is a direct response to the murder of his son at the Red Wedding and now you have the culprits responsible showing up and basically rubbing his face in it and the fact that his other son is a hostage of the King.  Plus, Manderley makes sure to observe the "technicalities" of guest right just to further throw it in the Freys' faces.  I mean, that doesn't really matter much in the grand scheme but it just shows that Manderley is going about seeking revenge.

Quote

We can all agree that killing/attacking a host of guest while they are defenseless and don't expect an attack is a vile crime, but I actually daresay this extends to all context where they are defenseless and think you are a friend or ally, never mind whether you are in guest-host relationship or not.

Sure.  I agree with this...I think that's the whole point really behind guest right.  Westeros is a world of vigorously controlled and regulated brutal violence...there are "niceties" to be observed.

Quote

It actually shows the moral bankruptcy of the world George has created when a man like Lord Wyman is considered to be less of a criminal than Lord Walder (insofar as we are talking about how he betrayed people who trusted him - not in relation to the scale of the murdered people, of course).

Again, where does Manderley come into this?  What he's doing is a direct response to the murder of one son and imprisonment of another by the Freys.  Violent and disgusting?  Sure.  But it doesn't happen without the Red Wedding.  That doesn't make it right but it makes it incomparable to the Red Wedding.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tagganaro said:

Again, where does Manderley come into this?  What he's doing is a direct response to the murder of one son and imprisonment of another by the Freys.  Violent and disgusting?  Sure.  But it doesn't happen without the Red Wedding.  That doesn't make it right but it makes it incomparable to the Red Wedding.
 

Yes, and even in this scene the author shows again the Frey as the worst of the two. Hosteen could have slap Manderly for the insult, instead he slashes a disarmed and disabled man…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

I like the idea that being boring is punishable by multiple stabbings. :-)

That's great! :lol:

2 hours ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

He's on legally dodgy ground, but as has been pointed out, so was Jon. While I think Jon's actions were justifiable, he was stepping outside of the law the moment he decided to make war on the Boltons, and Jon knew that. 

Both Jon and Marsh made their decisions - Jon decided that saving his sister was more important than keeping his vows. Marsh decided that preserving the Watch was more important than loyalty to one Lord Commander. Both are morally defensible in my opinion.

Ah, I see, I can fence sit on both! I admit I do have more sympathy for Jon than Marsh.

Did Jon betray his vows to the Watch to save his sister? Hadn't fArya already escaped when he decided to march against Ramsay? 

2 hours ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

They don't have regular elections or a recall system though. Once elected a Lord Commander serves until death. I see their tradition of election as a way of avoiding external imposition of a Lord Commander, by the Starks or the Iron Throne, not as a democratic principle. 

Yes, yes, but as an organization they have more options available to them than a traditional liege relationship. Certainly something more elegant than assassination. Some avenues may be more difficult with divided loyalties but they are seriously risking external imposition with two killings of a LC in so short a span, a time of war. It's not hard to talk to people, they like to have a say.

2 hours ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

Yes, her genius plan was that Osney Kettleblack, after "admitting" to banging Margaery, to take the black, and go North with a hundred men, then remove Jon from command. 

Oh, that's right I forgot about that. Thanks Shouldve Taken The Black!

I was thinking about the Marsh and co. conspiracy. Wasn't there a theory with possible letters going back and forth with KL? And maybe they didn't want Jon to help Stannis or to hurt the Boltons? Essentially taking the side of the crown.

One side question, how much is the crown allowed to interfere with the NW? Like they kill deserters in the king's name but did they have the right to kill Yoren? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...