Mance Rayder violated guest rights!

[Corvo the Crow]

I can't understand how people can't comprehend this and even go as far as blaming Jon'so Let's take baby steps into the guess rights. Today's lesson, required parties for a guest right. "You obviously need guests but what else?" I hear you ask. Well my sweet summer child, you need a host too.

Roose is the host, right?

No.

Ramsay then?

NO!

Well now, who the fleck is the host?

No one. Arya is the host but she is not Arya so...

Still stubborn enough to blind yourself to reason? Well then, bitter summer child;

Quote

"Even ruined and broken, Winterfell remains Lady Arya's home. What better place to wed her, bed her, and stake yourclaim? That is only half of it, however. We would be fools to march on Stannis. Let Stannis march on us. He is too cautious to come to Barrowton … but he must come to Winterfell.

Winterfell is Arya's home so she is the host. Ramsay's claim comes through her, so even if he is a host, it is only through her. Arya is a fake so no host, no host means no guest, which means no guest right.

Simple as that.

" Weevil John stole Pewr wemsay's fakee bride, he broke gest rides!" 

Yeah fer sure!

[Tagganaro]

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That doesn't make any sense in the medieval concept this whole thing is based on. In medieval times there was always a truce between hosts and guests in such situations as weddings, celebrations, meetings at formal occasions, etc. In times where there is no central power strong enough to ensure that laws are upheld but power is shared by a group of aristocrats a man's word was basically the only guarantee that you wouldn't be murdered at a negotiation, wedding, funeral, etc.

The idea that only a host is in the position to harm/kill a guest but not vice versa doesn't make any sense to me. A powerful guest certainly has the power to overwhelm a weak host - thus this would be definitely be a relationship based on mutual trust.

Perfectly fair.  I was wrong on this one after doing more research.  I was trying to run with the idea that guest right was really all about curing the perceived imbalance of power between a guest who may or may not have retainers with him entering the household of a Lord with all his serving men about.  While it makes perfect sense that of course it's reciprocal, I was thinking maybe there wasn't really this "name" of guest right attached to a violation by a guest.  I was wrong.

Quote

It is commented on, but nobody talks about killing the Freys for it, no? They have made themselves impossible with that action, but they did not outlaw themselves - at least no yet. We have to wait and see how Aegon or Daenerys deal with the Freys later on.

I'd argue that they have pretty much outlawed themselves.  Even in this current state of Westerosi affairs, nobody wants to be allied with the Freys or really wants anything to do with them.  The Boltons are stuck with them, but outside that they are a pariah.  Of course due to their overall power, size, and general necessity for them at the moment, nobody outside of loyal Stark Northmen are really willing to go after them, but I'd imagine that will change with someone like Aegon or Dany (if they even make it that far, I think Red Wedding 2.0 is a real possibility in the Riverlands).

Quote

I actually find Lord Walder not that loathsome back in AGoT. He is not very sympathetic but he is honest about what he wants and what he has issues with. He is actually a rather, well, easy customer if you met his terms and treat him the way he wants to be treated. The Freys are among Robb's strongest supporters until Robb spits in their face.

To each his own, but his portrayal was loathsome to me, beginning with the "late Lord Frey" running joke and his general level of perviness and creepiness.

Quote

 

Manderly came up because the whole Frey pie thing at Ramsay's wedding is pretty much the same thing the Rat Cook did - the only difference is that Manderly is a guest, and the Boltons are the hosts.

The killing of the Freys may not be a breaking of guest right but it is still murder and a betrayal of trust. The Freys were all assholes, sure, but they Manderly pretended to bend the knee, made promises, etc. and then he butchered them, ate them, and fed their remains to their kin.

 

Again, the Freys murdered his son in cold blood.  It would be more a "betrayal of trust" if he suddenly said "lets let bygones be bygones, who cares about my son."  There can't be a betrayal of trust when there is no trust to begin with...the Freys didn't trust Manderley any further than they could throw him, and for good reason.  They knew exactly what they were doing in showing up in White Harbor which was to hold his other son's hostage status over Manderley's head to make sure he stayed in line.

Quote

Revenge is part of his motivation, but the Iron Throne actually sent back his elder son and is willing to work with him. They offer him peace - he is the one rejecting it, not King Tommen, the Boltons, or the Freys.

Again, you act like Manderley should be grateful for the cold-blooded murder of his son and the capture of his other son to be held hostage.  You've been saying a major issue with the Red Wedding is the scale of it...that's exactly what the Freys are reaping the consequences of.  They didn't just butcher Robb who you could definitely say "spat in their face"...they butchered a bunch of other important (and innocent, as far as "betraying" the Freys goes) people like Manderley's son which obviously would make it impossible for Manderley to ever work with the Freys.

Even Lady Dustin, a supposed Bolton loyalist (although as many others do I have questions about that) is telling the Freys that the North remembers and is disgusted by them.

[Clegane'sPup]

I was the host to my dad and his third wife for a day visit.

Some of the stuff in this thread reminds me about when my dad and his third wife came to visit. Dad asked for a glass of water. He likes cold water (from the ice box).

I reached into the dishwasher.     Grabbed a clean glass.    Poured cold water from a container that I removed from the ice box into the glass.      Gave it to dad.     His third wife said, “See, I told you she doesn’t care about you. She gave you a cracked glass.”

People and their motives are complicated. What can I say? I guess she thought I broke guest right.

[Varysblackfyre321]

13 hours ago, Nowy Tends said:

Ok then. However Frey eating Frey doesn't kill Frey, does it?

I don't think Manderly was stupid; to me his provocation was very calculated…

No it's just a morally depraved for a person to trick people into doing especially a pregnant woman who by accounts is sweet and doesn't deserve such a thing just because she happen to be related to people he doesn't like. 

Its sick. I'm sure you recognize it as such. The sins of others or erroneous acts don't make Manderly's action beningh or him good by virtue of their being worse actors in the world 

[kissdbyfire]

49 minutes ago, Clegane'sPup said:

People and their motives are complicated. What can I say? I guess she thought I broke guest right.

 

[Kandrax]

1 hour ago, Tagganaro said:

o each his own, but his portrayal was loathsome to me, beginning with the "late Lord Frey" running joke and his general level of perviness and creepiness.

Did you suspect that he will not remain loyal to Robb?

[Bernie Mac]

7 hours ago, Sea Dragon said:

 

Honestly, not to sound rude, but you claimed that in one of your first posts.

no, I did not, please quote the post you think I denied that. 

7 hours ago, Sea Dragon said:

 But there is a difference to be made here in the story and that is the Boltons usurped their seat in Winterfell, therefore they are squatters and they have no rights to anything.

According to who? In a feudal land the king owns everything, every person staying on that land is a 'squatter' of some sorts. Where is it stated in the books that occupiers don't have to honor guest rights to the people staying under their roof and who they share their hospitality with? Where is it stated that guests don't have to honor guest rights if the roof they are staying under does not belong to the tenant of that building?  Your comprehension of guest rights runs foul of what the books have stated, as it would only apply to a small percentage of the population rather than the entire realm. 

The Boltons rebuilt Winterfell and invited the guests who accepted, and who willingly stay under the roof that they built. 

7 hours ago, Sea Dragon said:

Theon was the last one to take Winterfell by conquest because he never lied at who he was.

Where are you getting these arbitrary rules from? 

 

[Nowy Tends]

40 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

According to who? In a feudal land the king owns everything, every person staying on that land is a 'squatter' of some sorts.

No, it's much more complicated. Have you ever heard of the Capitulaire de Coulaines? It's the document by which Charles le Chauve, in 843,  grants to the nobles of the kingdom "the peaceful enjoyment of their function and their properties" and in return the latter will bring him "help and advice".

The definitive passage towards the feudalism is made when Charles guarantees to his Lords the power to bequeath their lands to their heir by the capitulary of Quierzy, in 877.

Feodalism = big weakening of the royal power, even if the King is the arbitrator of the system and the guarantor of its balance.

[Lord Varys]

22 hours ago, Nowy Tends said:

No, it's much more complicated. Have you ever heard of the Capitulaire de Coulaines? It's the document by which Charles le Chauve, in 843,  grants to the nobles of the kingdom "the peaceful enjoyment of their function and their properties" and in return the latter will bring him "help and advice".

The definitive passage towards the feudalism is made when Charles guarantees to his Lords the power to bequeath their lands to their heir by the capitulary of Quierzy, in 877.

Feodalism = big weakening of the royal power, even if the King is the arbitrator of the system and the guarantor of its balance.

The difference here is that there is no evidence that a King on the Iron Throne ever granted his lords any such rights as the French kings did.

The account on the Conquest shows us how Aegon the Conqueror remade kings into humble lords, and how he (and later his successors) dealt with lords who presumed too much. We don't even know whether a lord has a legal right to demand that his son and heir receive his lordship after him or whether that's merely a privilege the king usually grants.

The kings in Westeros can attaint and destroy entire noble lines - even dragonless kings like Joffrey and Robert can do that. And that's something that is did not actually happen all that often in the real middle ages. Nobility acquired power over time and seats and offices became hereditary overtime, too.

It also seems as if some former royal families - like the Starks and the Arryns - got better conditions from the Conqueror than other. Loren Lannister was captured by the Targaryens after the Field of Fire and thus pretty much helpless. Torrhen Stark actually made a deal with Aegon - not exactly eye to eye, but from a stronger position than Sharra Arryn (who dealt with Visenya while the woman effectively held her son as her hostage).

In any case - the idea that a King on the Iron Throne simply has to suffer this or that family as lords of this or that region for all eternity is simply wrong. We learn this as early as the early chapters of AGoT when it is of paramount importance for Cat that Ned does not antagonize King Robert because he cannot afford that the king grew suspicious of him.

On 25.4.2018 at 11:09 PM, Tagganaro said:

Perfectly fair.  I was wrong on this one after doing more research.  I was trying to run with the idea that guest right was really all about curing the perceived imbalance of power between a guest who may or may not have retainers with him entering the household of a Lord with all his serving men about.  While it makes perfect sense that of course it's reciprocal, I was thinking maybe there wasn't really this "name" of guest right attached to a violation by a guest.  I was wrong.

A very good portrayal of the whole guest-host relationship in the real middle ages you can find in the Nibelungenlied where both host and guests contribute greatly to the breaking out violence at the court of King Etzel - whereas it is pretty clear that King Etzel himself - as the host of all involved parties - tries his best to keep the peace and goes even to great lengths, at times, to try to do that.

Quote

I'd argue that they have pretty much outlawed themselves.  Even in this current state of Westerosi affairs, nobody wants to be allied with the Freys or really wants anything to do with them.  The Boltons are stuck with them, but outside that they are a pariah.  Of course due to their overall power, size, and general necessity for them at the moment, nobody outside of loyal Stark Northmen are really willing to go after them, but I'd imagine that will change with someone like Aegon or Dany (if they even make it that far, I think Red Wedding 2.0 is a real possibility in the Riverlands).

Not to the point that they really are pariahs already. But they clearly are on the way to that place.

My point is more that nobody took the Red Wedding as a pretext or cause to break with King Joffrey/Tommen and demand that the Freys and Boltons be formally outlawed. The Tyrells certainly could have done that, as could have the Martells or the Lords of the Vale.

In fact, one wonders why nobody used this atrocity to put pressure on both Tywin and Cersei.

A possible answer might lie in the fact that the breaking of guest right isn't seen as great an offense in the south as it is in the North. A Stark king working with a northern house arranging a similar thing as the Red Wedding to put down a rival or rebel might not be able to continue work with such a person/house.

Quote

To each his own, but his portrayal was loathsome to me, beginning with the "late Lord Frey" running joke and his general level of perviness and creepiness.

Well, he is a prototype of the horny, creepy, old man. That isn't very sympathetic, but what I actually do like about Walder is that his bluntness isn't a smokescreen hiding his true agenda - like it is with Olenna Redwyne - but that the man actually speaks his mind and is very honest about his (many) concerns, real or imagined.

I actually think Walder Frey can be a very real and true friend if you meet him where he stands and actually treat him the way he wants to be treated.

Quote

Again, the Freys murdered his son in cold blood.  It would be more a "betrayal of trust" if he suddenly said "lets let bygones be bygones, who cares about my son."  There can't be a betrayal of trust when there is no trust to begin with...the Freys didn't trust Manderley any further than they could throw him, and for good reason.  They knew exactly what they were doing in showing up in White Harbor which was to hold his other son's hostage status over Manderley's head to make sure he stayed in line.

Well, ugly things do happen in war, no?

I mean, if you rebel against the king you do know that you, your sons, your family, and your city might suffer the consequences if you lose.

Sure, Wendel Manderly was killed in not exactly nice fashion, but you usually make peace with your enemies eventually. And if you want to continue to fight you should not mimic the Freys and pretend to be the friend of your enemy but fight them the honest way, the way Wylla Manderly wanted her grandfather to fight.

Quote

Even Lady Dustin, a supposed Bolton loyalist (although as many others do I have questions about that) is telling the Freys that the North remembers and is disgusted by them.

Lady Barbrey must know that Roose is as responsible for the Red Wedding as Walder Frey, perhaps even more. I honestly see her remark there more as means to try to help keep the peace - by making it clear that the Manderlys aren't the only ones who have issues with the Freys - than to give us a true view into her feelings.

If she was playing a role there one would have expected that the reader - if not Theon - see a clear hint that she might play a role in one of his many interactions with Theon. Yet there are no such hints there. None at all.

[X-Buster]

There are two separate points to be discussed.  Jon sent Mance Rayder to bring his sister to the wall.  He was going to take Arya somewhere where her husband can't reach her.  That's not being neutral.  Jon gave Mance Rayder a get out of execution card.  For all of that, Jon is guilty of treason.  He was about to do something worse than what the Nightking did, he was going to lead an attack against the people he swore to defend.  Jon is guilty of all of those and Bowen Marsh was right to kill him.

Mance Rayder broke guest rights but that's not surprising because Mance was never good at obeying rules.  Jon is responsible for the whole mission but he's not responsible for what Mance decided to do in Winterfell.  A president who sends troops to the middle east is responsible for the war but he's not responsible for the actions of each individual soldier.  I do not think Jon is guilty of breaking the tradition of guest rights.  He is guilty for sending Mance out in the first place but he's not guilty of breaking the spirit of guest rights.  

[Light a wight tonight]

10 hours ago, E.S. Dinah said:

There are two separate points to be discussed.  Jon sent Mance Rayder to bring his sister to the wall.  He was going to take Arya somewhere where her husband can't reach her.  That's not being neutral.  Jon gave Mance Rayder a get out of execution card.  For all of that, Jon is guilty of treason.  He was about to do something worse than what the Nightking did, he was going to lead an attack against the people he swore to defend.  Jon is guilty of all of those and Bowen Marsh was right to kill him.

Mance Rayder broke guest rights but that's not surprising because Mance was never good at obeying rules.  Jon is responsible for the whole mission but he's not responsible for what Mance decided to do in Winterfell.  A president who sends troops to the middle east is responsible for the war but he's not responsible for the actions of each individual soldier.  I do not think Jon is guilty of breaking the tradition of guest rights.  He is guilty for sending Mance out in the first place but he's not guilty of breaking the spirit of guest rights.  

Well, you could say that Jon sent Mance to get the girl on the grey horse, not to infiltrate Winterfell. And Jon didn't involve the Watch. This was a private deal on the side with non-Watch personnel. No treason involved.

Mance wasn't a guest at Winterfell. He was hired help, performing at the wedding for food and lodging.

[Darth Sidious]

1 hour ago, Light a wight tonight said:

Well, you could say that Jon sent Mance to get the girl on the grey horse, not to infiltrate Winterfell. And Jon didn't involve the Watch. This was a private deal on the side with non-Watch personnel. No treason involved.

Mance wasn't a guest at Winterfell. He was hired help, performing at the wedding for food and lodging.

I must take issue with your excuse, Lighter o' Wights. 

Was Jon planning to send Arya back to her husband?  We both know that he was not.  We both know, the watch should not interfere.  Sugar coat it as much as you like but Jon was wrong to even contemplate keeping Arya away from Ramsay.  Imagine the risk.  The Boltons will eventually find out and they will assume the NW was involved because its lord commander was involved.  Jon was irresponsible and it was reckless.  Treason, actually. 

The wildlings murdered Bolton's servants after enjoying his hospitality.  That is a violation of guest rights.

[Clegane'sPup]

7 minutes ago, Agent Orange said:

Was Jon planning to send Arya back to her husband?  We both know that he was not.

In this story knowing what you know would you send your sister back to her husband?

 

[Nowy Tends]

19 minutes ago, Agent Orange said:

Was Jon planning to send Arya back to her husband? 

The world famous sadistic psycho who makes the poor girl roar with pain to the point everyone in Winterfell can hear her? Your hero?

 Imagine the risk.  The Boltons will eventually find out and they will assume the NW was involved because its lord commander was involved.  Jon was irresponsible and it was reckless.  Treason, actually. 

Good one. You simply forget the pink letter which contains a direct threat to the LC of the Watch…

The wildlings murdered Bolton's servants after enjoying his hospitality.  That is a violation of guest rights.

You have NO evidence of that. It's been debated in this thread, but "debate" is not something you're interested in.

 

[Kandrax]

7 hours ago, Nowy Tends said:

Good one. You simply forget the pink letter which contains a direct threat to the LC of the Watch…

Even Jon thinks that attacking Boltons is oathbreaking.

[bemused]

On 4/27/2018 at 1:06 AM, Kandrax said:

Even Jon thinks that attacking Boltons is oathbreaking.

Still...?!?

This has been hashed out many, many times . No, Jon does not think that.

In Jon XIII we read... A lord needed men about him he could rely upon for honest counsel. Marsh and Yarwyck were no lickspittles, and that was to the good … but they were seldom any help either. More and more, he found he knew what they would say before he asked them.

Reading ahead, we come to... Jon flexed the fingers of his sword hand. The Night's Watch takes no part. He closed his fist and opened it again. What you propose is nothing less than treason. He thought of Robb, with snowflakes melting in his hair. Kill the boy and let the man be born. He thought of Bran, clambering up a tower wall, agile as a monkey. Of Rickon's breathless laughter. Of Sansa, brushing out Lady's coat and singing to herself. You know nothing, Jon Snow. He thought of Arya, her hair as tangled as a bird's nest. I made him a warm cloak from the skins of the six whores who came with him to Winterfell … I want my bride back … I want my bride back … I want my bride back …

Apart from Jon flexing his burned hand, this paragraph is entirely composed of Jon's memories. The  statements in bold are all things that other characters have said directly to him. Maester Aemon was the first to tell Jon the NW takes no part, back in AGoT and later in ADWD, kill the boy and let the man be born. There is Ygritte's, you know nothing, Jon Snow (which may be meant to temper Jon's "There is truth in there.") and of course, the last part of the paragraph is a direct quote from the author of the letter.

What you propose is nothing less than treason comes verbatim from Bowen Marsh in Jon XI ...  "The lord commander must pardon my bluntness, but I have no softer way to say this. What you propose is nothing less than treason. ... 

Bowen simultaneously accuses Jon of his going against his oath ... yet when Jon challenges him on the meaning of the oath, Bowen can't come up with a logical response. So when Jon thinks, after reading out the letter... No man can ever say I made my brothers break their vows. If this is oathbreaking, the crime is mine and mine alone. 

... he says If because he already knows what Bowen and his ilk will say about it. He's trying to avoid dissension among the Watch. Generally, there is nothing prohibiting a LC riding south, or any NW member designated or given permission by the LC. There is nothing that prevents the LC from answering a personal threat or a threat to the watch. 

Until TWoW is released the question of whether Arya or the safety of Castle Black was foremost in Jon's mind, or whether they were equal concerns, will go unresolved.

But we have seen, in the case of Jaime,and now twice in the case of Jon that eventually oaths and normal regulations can be overwhelmed and rendered ineffective in extreme circumstances. They can even be more damaging if they are followed.

In the question of Mance and guest right, there are no completely honest brokers in WF. Roose and Ramsay have been proven not to give a damn about guest right. They have purposely broken it.(Roose at the Twins, Ramsay when he was not just Theon's guest, but had declared himself Theon's man) For the others, in the extreme political circumstances, I'm sure they're not double checking their own every move for infractions. They are in rebellion, as @Clegane'sPup has pointed out numerous times.

Manderly kept to the form of guest right in his own home, but now he's at war.. with a "host" the Northmen consider illegitimate. There are signs that Mance is being aided by the Northmen. His mission has been folded into their rebellion. If they don't win at any cost, they can't expect to survive.This is when norms cease to have any meaning.

 

 

[Kandrax]

31 minutes ago, bemused said:

Roose at the Twins, Ramsay when he was not just Theon's guest, but had declared himself Theon's man)

Neither of them did it. Roose was also guest, we don't know if a guest killing guest is against guest right. Ramsay was never Theon's guest.

[bemused]

9 hours ago, Kandrax said:

Neither of them did it. Roose was also guest, we don't know if a guest killing guest is against guest right. Ramsay was never Theon's guest.

Roose didn't set aside all arms and armour as the other guests were expected to do. He had foreknowledge of the event and was at least a willing participant if he didn't contribute to the planning.

I admit that I picked a weak example for Ramsay, but it was yet another betrayal .. My point is that he doesn't respect any rules or norms of behavior. He abuses Lord Stout's hospitality by expecting?.. demanding?.. a welcoming feast, depleting Stout's winter stores. That's at least putting a strain on guest right .. but it's nothing compared to his other behavior.

Manderly and Glover sum things up neatly in Davos IV...

"Was ever snow so black?" asked Lord Wyman. "Ramsay took Lord Hornwood's lands by forcibly wedding his widow, then locked her in a tower and forgot her. It is said she ate her own fingers in her extremity … and the Lannister notion of king's justice is to reward her killer with Ned Stark's little girl."

"The Boltons have always been as cruel as they were cunning, but this one seems a beast in human skin," said Glover.

The Lord of White Harbor leaned forward. "The Freys are no better. They speak of wargs and skinchangers and assert that it was Robb Stark who slew my Wendel. The arrogance of it! They do not expect the north to believe their lies, not truly, but they think we must pretend to believe or die. Roose Bolton lies about his part in the Red Wedding, and his bastard lies about the fall of Winterfell. And yet so long as they held Wylis I had no choice but to eat all this excrement and praise the taste."

In light of all the Bolton betrayals and lies, the Northmen are justified in their resistance ("mayhaps" lives in their heart of hearts) and the rest is nit picking, IMO.

 

[Clegane'sPup]

lemme see if I can get some perspective

12 hours ago, bemused said:

They have purposely broken it.(Roose at the Twins, Ramsay when he was not just Theon's guest, but had declared himself Theon's man)

Then

12 hours ago, Kandrax said:

Neither of them did it. Roose was also guest, we don't know if a guest killing guest is against guest right. Ramsay was never Theon's guest.

Okey dokey, @Kandrax what is it you are trying to communicate? Let me help you build your status, the post count.

Yes, Roose was a guest at the RW. Caveat is that Roose was involved in the planning.

A Storm of Swords - Catelyn VII      A man in dark armor and a pale pink cloak spotted with blood stepped up to Robb. "Jaime Lannister sends his regards." He thrust his longsword through her son's heart, and twisted./

Theon accepted Reek/Ramsey (deception) into his service. Ramsey ate Theon’s bread. Theon, let Ramsey loose because Reek/Ramsey said he could help Theon/Reek. Ramsey/Reek came back came back to WF. Then Ramsey crushed Rodrick & his men. Then Ramsey crushed Theon.

Soooooo, @Kandrax, did Mance break guest right?

 

 

 

[Kandrax]

26 minutes ago, Clegane'sPup said:

Theon’s bread.

Farlen also eat Theon's bread. Did Theon break GR by killing him?

 

26 minutes ago, Clegane'sPup said:

Mance break guest right?

I don't know. Does Gr affect a whole host's household or just members of his family?