Jump to content
Wolf's Bane

Mance Rayder violated guest rights!

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, Wolf's Bane said:

It is my opinion that Mance Rayder broke guest rights when he entered Winterfell and stole fArya from the Boltons. 

Jon Snow and Mellissandre convinced Mance Rayder to steal fArya Stark from her husband, Ramsay Bolton.

Mance lied and presented himself as a traveling entertainer (bard).

Mance and his women ate the food and drank the wine of their hosts, the Boltons.

They commit murder beneath the roof of their guests.  They murdered the Bolton serving men.  

They remove fArya from Winterfell, from her husband.

That's an egregious violation of guest rights.  That makes Mel and Jon indirectly guilt to the breaking of guest rights.

 

Yes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Bowen 747 said:

Mance didn't escape from the Wall on his own.  Jon let him walk and sent him to get Arya away from Ramsay.  Mance didn't just happen on a group of cooperative wildlng women eager to endanger their lives to go to Winterfell.  Mance didn't risk his life and those of his women to go to Winterfell and rescue the girl that he thought was Arya.  Mance is on that mission because Jon Snow sent him.  You cannot deny that.  There is no way you can defend Jon for this.  

Maybe you should add some book quotes to clarify your claims because so far you are skipping over a whole lot of story. 

And speaking of the story, you’re stomping around like the story is over and there are no more changes or repercussions to come. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Adam Yozza said:

You both got proven 100% correct almost immediately after you made these posts.

Trolls are vigilant these days aren't they?  As soon as there's an opportunity to say something inept about <youknowwho>, a flight of ravens fall on the forum as if it was Raventree Hall's weirwood…

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Nowy Tends said:

What's this gibberish? Tywin sacked KL, he didn't "took" it, he never claimed he was the new legit owner of the place… You got it all mixed up…

The Boltons took WF by betrayal, just like Theon; both betrayed the Stark. Ramsay is a scum, a war criminal, etc. one has to be seriouly disturbed to consider he might have a claim as "the rightful Lord of WF". :blink:

All is fair in love and war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ferocious Veldt Roarer said:

The kid was being raped by dogs, FFS. 

This is only assumption

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Unacosamedarisa said:

And Jon wasn't, is Bernie Mac's point, I think. Mance may have broken guest right, but Jon hasn't, because he wasn't a guest. Guest Right, and the breaking of it, can only affect the Host (Boltons) and the Guest (Mance). 3rd parties who may have facilitated the guests are not included and no breaking of Guest Right can be attributed to them. 

Well, it seems also that engineers of the events can be caught, there is little doubt that Twyin is in large part responsible for the Red Wedding. But as others have said Jon knew nothing of the infiltration plot, he sent Mance to find, well, Lady Karstark, but he didn't know that at the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, zandru said:

The Boltons, as well as the Freys, have no right to "guest right" anymore, because of what they did to Robb Stark and his troops. If somebody comes into their place and does them dirty, well boo hoo hoo. A man reaps what he sows. Except for the Greyjoys, who "do not sow."

I think that shits from my country used same logic for Croats during Yugoslav wars, because of what happened during WW2.

What if that somebody decides to rape Walder's youngest daughter?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Bowen 747 said:
8 hours ago, Megorova said:

Winterfell belong to Starks.

 

I see.  So can we agree that Robert and the Baratheons never really owned the Seven Kingdoms because King Viserys 3 and Princess Daenerys remained its rightful rulers.  Right of Conquest means nothing then.  

There are two types of conquest - thru annihilation, and thru submission (bending the knee and admitting defeat; marriage alliance is also form of it, like in case with Ramsay and Arya, or with Ormund Baratheon and Argella Durrandon). Aegon I used mix of both, to conquer Westeros.

Robert didn't killed all Targaryens, two of them were still alive, and they didn't bend the knee to Robert (Viserys could have bended the knee for himself, and on behalf of his infant sister). Thus Robert's conquest wasn't complete, and he was an Usurper. Govermnent officials eventually agreed, that Robert can sit on Iron Throne, because pureblooded Targaryens left Westeros, and weren't intending to return there in a forseeable future. And someone had to rule. Thus Robert, as 25% Targaryen, thru his paternal grandmother, had the strongest claim over Targaryens' property, that they left behind, when they escaped to Essos, including Iron Throne and 7K. Robert was legally remaining rightful King, but only as long as Targaryens were staying away from 7K. At least that's my view of that situation.

Same with Boltons. There are still Starks alive, and they didn't relinquished their ownership of Winterfell to Boltons. Ramsay thought, that Winterfell is his, because he thought, that he married with Arya Stark, or pretended that he thought so, and the other Starks were gone. Doesn't even matter, whether they were really dead or just missing, what did mattered is that they didn't proclaimed their ownership of Winterfell, and didn't challenged Bolton's taking of it.

According to officially known information, all male Starks are dead, oldest female Stark - Sansa, is missing, thus Arya was owner of Winterfell. Thru marriage with her, Ramsay could have became her Consort, and owner of Winterfell. But because that Arya is actually fake, this means that currently the strongest claim over Winterfell has Jon Snow, whom was chosen by Robb Stark, as his heir. Thus Jon's existence is a treat to Ramsay. As long as he isn't able to retrieve Arya or fake Arya, and as long as Sansa, or Bran, or Rickon didn't announced, that they are alive, Jon is owner of Winterfell. Not Ramsay. Him loosing fArya is equal to him loosing any rights to Winterfell. Same as great uncle of Alys Karstark actually had to marry with her, to get his hands on Karhold. He couldn't just say, that Alys is gone and thus he's declaring himself new Lord of Karhold. To have it, he had to have Alys. To own Winterfell, Ramsay has to have Arya. And because she's not even real Arya Stark, Ramsay's marriage with her doesn't make him owner of Winterfell. Theon knows it, so at least from his side, there was no breaking of guest right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nowy Tends said:

What's this gibberish? Tywin sacked KL, he didn't "took" it, he never claimed he was the new legit owner of the place… You got it all mixed up…

The Boltons took WF by betrayal, just like Theon; both betrayed the Stark. Ramsay is a scum, a war criminal, etc. one has to be seriouly disturbed to consider he might have a claim as "the rightful Lord of WF". :blink:

Tywin arrived at King's Landing under the guise of supporting Aerys against an enemy army, convinced them to open the gates and then attacked the Targaryen forces when they did.

Ramsay arrived at Winterfell, supported Theon against an enemy army, convinced him to open his gates and then attacked the Iron Born when they did.

Again - What's the difference? Hell, Theon and Aerys were even both betrayed by men who'd sworn oaths to them. Aerys was arguably even more of a betrayal there, since Jaime was an anointed Knight of the Kingsguard and "Reek" appeared to be just a bloke who smelled bad .

Ramsay sacking Winterfell was worse than the sack of King's Landing too. He set the place on fire, killed all the men, took the women and left it a ruin. King's Landing was at least functional after Tywin handed it to Robert.

Ramsay being scum has nothing to do with it either. If you insist that the Targaryens have absolutely no claim on the Iron Throne (as many do. Mostly people who hate Dany and/or Jon) then you have to also acknowledge that the Starks have no claim on Winterfell. I don't agree with it personally, like, but it'd be hypocritical to claim Right of Conquest is ironclad in one situation and not in another..

You also can't pretend that Robert taking the Throne was all nice and honourable. I mean, Aerys and Tywin were BEST FRIENDS at one point and Tywin ordered the deaths of his infant Grandchildren after going "Hey! Open the gates. I'll protect you!". How is that NOT a betrayal? Actually, thinking about it, how come that doesn't make Tywin scum, a war criminal, etc? Or Robert for actively supporting - and rewarding - his actions? Are people "seriously disturbed" for thinking Robert had a claim to be the rightful King?

In fact, of three situations. Theon was by far the most honourable. He used stealth and clever tactics, but there was no deceit and very little violence in comparison to either Tywin/Robert or Ramsay. So how come his reign as Prince of Winterfell is somehow invalid to you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kandrax said:

What if that somebody decides to rape Walder's youngest daughter?

You mean, someone other than old Walder Frey?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Lord Lannister said:

Okay, maybe he is. So what? Mythical forces aren't going to strike him down anymore than they did the Freys.

.......bit early to make that call, I think.

I, for one, really don't expect to see a single Frey make it to the end of the series. They're dropping like flies already.

(Though, yeah, they did it openly. At a wedding. Against their King.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Lord Lannister said:

Okay, maybe he is. So what? Mythical forces aren't going to strike him down anymore than they did the Freys.

Mythical forces maybe not. But something tells me Jon Snow isn't going to end up universally despised across Westeros or have a a very effective band of outlwas led by a literal zombie hunting him down.

That's beside the point though. Jon is no more guilty of breaking guest right than Tywin is. The North will always hold Tywin partly responsible for the attrocity that is the Red Wedding, but he didn't break guest rights by helping to plan it. It wasn't his roof, it wasn't his food and they weren't his guests. The Frey's broke guest right. No one else. In the same way, Jon did not break guest right by sending Mance to Winterfell (which, if you read the text, he actually didn't). He did release Mance from imprisonment and send him on a mission, true, and so he does carry some responsibility for his actions. But he didn't break guest right.

Then there is of course the whole argument that no one in Winterfell is under guest right; either because it doesn't belong to the Bolton's in the eyes of the gods or the northmen, or because no one ate Bolton's food while under their roof (Manderly supplies the food); but I can't really be bothered explaining each point so I'll leave it at that for now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, UnFit Finlay said:

Tywin arrived at King's Landing under the guise of supporting Aerys against an enemy army, convinced them to open the gates and then attacked the Targaryen forces when they did

Tywin didn't pretend he was coming to aid Aerys, nor did he convince anyone to open the city gates. The Mad King assumed Tywin had come to his rescue as he'd done at Duskendale. And Pycelle, always the Lannister man, convinced the king to open the gates, against Varys' advice. 

Edited by kissdbyfire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lord Lannister said:

Okay, maybe he is. So what? Mythical forces aren't going to strike him down anymore than they did the Freys.

This is a bit of a sidetrack, but I wonder if this is true.

Mythical forces of magic do exist within Westeros. It's worth looking at things with that sort of mindset. The magic of the Old Gods, it seems, is partly an accumulation of knowledge of thousands of greenseers looking ahead and back and so on. It seems they have some ability, whether limited or not, to enact changes.

Maybe they have, over time, noted who has violated guest right and ensured that ruin fell upon them in other ways. The Freys, for instance, have seen their considerable numbers as a family getting thinned out as they're murdered. Who knows? Maybe the greenseers looking ahead and behind are ensuring that those looking to murder the them will always find their targets.

Just idle speculation, but that's how I think of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, UnFit Finlay said:

Again - What's the difference? Hell, Theon and Aerys were even both betrayed by men who'd sworn oaths to them. Aerys was arguably even more of a betrayal there, since Jaime was an anointed Knight of the Kingsguard and "Reek" appeared to be just a bloke who smelled bad .

Who had sworn an oath to Theon??? And a comparison between Jaime and Reek, seriously?

If you insist that the Targaryens have absolutely no claim on the Iron Throne (as many do. Mostly people who hate Dany and/or Jon) then you have to also acknowledge that the Starks have no claim on Winterfell.

When did I say that? Where did you get this idea?

You also can't pretend that Robert taking the Throne was all nice and honourable. I mean, Aerys and Tywin were BEST FRIENDS at one point and Tywin ordered the deaths of his infant Grandchildren after going "Hey! Open the gates. I'll protect you!". How is that NOT a betrayal? Actually, thinking about it, how come that doesn't make Tywin scum, a war criminal, etc? Or Robert for actively supporting - and rewarding - his actions? Are people "seriously disturbed" for thinking Robert had a claim to be the rightful King?

I've never pretended anything and your comparison between Ramsay and Robert makes no sense. Robert was in open rebellion because Aerys wanted his head (among other things). No one threatened Theon or Ramsay, they took WF because, well,  it was possible…

As for Tywin he betrayed but he never claimed lordship of KL, why do you bring him here again and again?

In fact, of three situations. Theon was by far the most honourable. He used stealth and clever tactics, but there was no deceit and very little violence in comparison to either Tywin/Robert or Ramsay. So how come his reign as Prince of Winterfell is somehow invalid to you?

This is laughable. Theon is completely lost after the meeting with his father. He's so insecure, no one acknowledges him as a "Prince". It's in the book. Read harder.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, zandru said:

You mean, someone other than old Walder Frey?

There is no incest in House Frey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

Tywin didn't pretend he was coming to aid Aerys, nor did he convince anyone to open the city gates. The Mad King assumed Tywin had come to his rescue as he'd done at Duskendale. And Pycelle, always the Lannister man, convinced the king to open the gates, against Varys' advice. 

That's not what Ned believes in AGOT

"Aerys Targaryen must have thought that his gods had answered his prayers when Lord Tywin Lannister appeared before the gates of King's Landing with an army twelve thousand strong, professing loyalty. So the mad king had ordered his last mad act. He had opened his city to the lions at the gate."

6 hours ago, Nowy Tends said:

Who had sworn an oath to Theon??? And a comparison between Jaime and Reek, seriously?

Ramsay did. As Reek.

And, yes, It's a perfectly valid comparison. You're insisting that Ramsay taking Winterfell doesn't count because "it was by betrayal" even though Aerys suffered a far bigger betrayal. Theon didn't even know "Reek". He thought he was just some commoner, who would likely betray him anyway. Jaime was a sworn Knight of the Kingsguard who Aerys fully believed would protect him. Again - Far bigger betrayal there.

Quote

When did I say that? Where did you get this idea?

I never said you did. In fact I've been pretty clear that it's a popular theory that just annoys me. Read harder. I'm mostly just responding to your double standard when it comes to betrayal and/or morality. Not to mention your insistence that two situations that were almost exactly the same were somehow completely different.

Quote

I've never pretended anything and your comparison between Ramsay and Robert makes no sense. Robert was in open rebellion because Aerys wanted his head (among other things). No one threatened Theon or Ramsay, they took WF because, well,  it was possible…

Firstly......did you skip the entire bit where "Ramsay" was killed by Rodrik? The Starks literally believed that they'd killed him. On sight. With no trial. How is that NOT a threat?

Also - Quit changing your arguments. You implied that I was "severely disturbed" for suggesting that Ramsay had a legitimate claim to Winterfell, just because he's a terrible person. Tywin murdered children, in Robert's name, to curry Robert's favour and Robert rewarded him for it. That makes them all terrible people, at least in my view.

Quote

As for Tywin he betrayed but he never claimed lordship of KL, why do you bring him here again and again?

Because YOU'RE saying that a Castle taken by "betrayal" doesn't count as Right of Conquest. Tywin took King's Landing by betraying Aerys and then swore allegiance to Robert. That's how Robert took the Throne. Going by your logic Robert was never the real King.

The Lannisters did originally claim the City by the way. Ned and Robert discuss it in AGOT. Robert refers to "our men taking the city" and Ned points out that they'd flown the Lion of Lannister and not the Crowned Stag. It's a small point but it's enough for Ned to hold a grudge over so many years later.

Quote

This is laughable. Theon is completely lost after the meeting with his father. He's so insecure, no one acknowledges him as a "Prince". It's in the book. Read harder.

And? This has nothing to do with what I'm saying at all. Again - You're arguing that a Castle taken in a dishonourable way doesn't count as Right of Conquest. Yet Theon took Winterfell far more honourably than the forces that took King's Landing. That's undeniable. Yet you think one counts and the other doesn't?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We see many times that the "conqueror" marry the daughter of the former ruler, Andals in the Vale, Orya Baratheon with Durrandons, Starks with Marsh King among others. Boltons do exactly the same with Starks, except they are faking it. So no, they don't own Winterfell because they didn't marry into the former ruling house and daughter or not, they didn't conquer Winterfell either, they just razed it and left it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kandrax said:

There is no incest in House Frey.

there might be, if the rumors of black Walder sleeping with his cousins are true, though Westeros seems to be more accepting of relations between cousins (such as Ned's parents, Tywin and Joanna)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×