Joffrey Was Justified in Beheading Ned Stark.

[A Ghost of Someone]

4 hours ago, The Sleeper said:

Joffrey would have the right and justification to execute Ned, except... 

Joffrey was a minor who should not be making decisions at all, but have a Regent making them for him and as it seems that people have forgotten that was supposed to be Ned, per Robert's will. Which was made under false assumptions, but Cersei took over anyway and Joffrey disregarded the deal she had made. 

Legality had long since gone out of the window. 

Exactly, which Cersei basically usurped that role by taring the Decree / Will of Robert and assumed power in the Red Keep in front of the same people who ignored her at the Sept where Ned was executed a short while later. 

[SirArthur]

On 10/14/2018 at 8:34 PM, •Brandon Ice Eyes said:

Let’s look at it from Joffreys PoV. I myself am a stark fan but even I won’t deny that from Joffrey point of view, Ned had every intention of taking the throne from him of which he thought was his birthright, unaware of his true heritage. This is high treason no matter how you sugarcoat it and I think that his execution was sad, yet justified.

Joff wasn't an adult, so his order was technical high treason against the throne, represented by Cersei, too. That is the entire problem with the story and Joff's POV. 

If you take away a lolly from a three year old, the three year old would also cry. And we can understand the little kid and why he is crying. But the legal system works different, even if the three year old thinks it is high treason now. 

[Brandon Ice-Eyes]

1 hour ago, SirArthur said:

Joff wasn't an adult, so his order was technical high treason against the throne, represented by Cersei, too. That is the entire problem with the story and Joff's POV. 

If you take away a lolly from a three year old, the three year old would also cry. And we can understand the little kid and why he is crying. But the legal system works different, even if the three year old thinks it is high treason now. 

High treason over a lollipop lol

[Moiraine Sedai]

Ned got cheated.  Janos Slynt got cheated.  The old insurance vendor got cheated.  They all got cheated out of justice.  None of what they did is punishable by death.  Ned didn't actually try to remove Joff.  He tried to take the regency from Cersei. 

[Universal Sword Donor]

Skipping over many posts, so my apologies if I repeat some content:

• From Joff's POV: Yes he is in the right to execute Ned Stark
  • Was it smart to execute ned?
    • No it was not. It dragged on a war that would prove to be very short lived had Ned been able to curtail Robb's march south.
  • Was the location and/or manner smart?
    • No it was especially dumb since he publicly announces that his regent advised clemency and executing Ned on the steps of the Great Sept and pissed off the Faith.
• From Reader's POV: No he did not
  • Was it smart to execute ned?
    • Again no because it drags out a war that the Lannisters are looking to fight on at least 3 fronts
  • Was the location and/or manner smart?
    • No because now it gives Renly the upper hand in pretending to be a protector of the Faith
      • Stannis is out as he is currently chilling with Red Rahloo

[Bowen 747]

Do you all believe keeping Ned alive would have prevented the war of the five kings?  What started the war is the crippling of Bran by Jaime Lannister.  Ned alive would not change that.  Send Ned to the wall and take most of the Stark assets to punish them for opposing their king.  The Starks might rather have him dead instead.  

[Bowen 747]

We will never know whether it was the wisest of choice.  We the readers know it was unjust because Ned was innocent but Joffrey doesn't know that. 

If I had to rank the blame it would be this.

1. Jaime for trying to kill Bran.
2. Cersei because she and Jaime could have been more discreet.
3. Catelyn for kidnapping Tyrion.
4. Sansa for telling her father's escape plans to Cersei.

[The Commentator]

On 10/14/2018 at 2:34 PM, •Brandon Ice Eyes said:

Let’s look at it from Joffreys PoV. I myself am a stark fan but even I won’t deny that from Joffrey point of view, Ned had every intention of taking the throne from him of which he thought was his birthright, unaware of his true heritage. This is high treason no matter how you sugarcoat it and I think that his execution was sad, yet justified.

Absolutely justified from Joffrey's PoV.  

[Varysblackfyre321]

22 hours ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

Was the location and/or manner smart?

• No because now it gives Renly the upper hand in pretending to be a protector of the Faith
  • Stannis is out as he is currently chilling with Red Rahloo

 

Renly Baratheon the faithful’s defender has a nice name to it. Seriously though I always thought Renly could justify to the public skipping Stannis in the line of succession through the point to the fact his elder brother is a heathen. Though Renly is already trying to usurp his nephews already so that may be a little unnecessary. 

[John Suburbs]

Isn't anything that anybody does justified according to their own POV? I'm sure Gregor Clegane justifies his actions because they were necessary to carry out his lord's commands. And even the rapes of Elia and the innkeeper's daughter could be justified by "well, I am the lord of Clegane's Keep and I deserve my pleasure."

Same goes for Ramsay, Kraznys, Walder Frey … certainly Cersei justifies her actions, even if it is sending innocent people down to Qyburn to be tortured and mutated.

So to say that Joffrey justifies his own actions is something of a misnomer, no? Isn't the real question whether Joffrey's, or anybody's, actions can be justified under a broader scope? 

[Varysblackfyre321]

12 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

Isn't anything that anybody does justified according to their own POV? I'm sure Gregor Clegane justifies his actions because they were necessary to carry out his lord's commands. And even the rapes of Elia and the innkeeper's daughter could be justified by "well, I am the lord of Clegane's Keep and I deserve my pleasure."

Same goes for Ramsay, Kraznys, Walder Frey … certainly Cersei justifies her actions, even if it is sending innocent people down to Qyburn to be tortured and mutated.

So to say that Joffrey justifies his own actions is something of a misnomer, no? Isn't the real question whether Joffrey's, or anybody's, actions can be justified under a broader scope? 

You are spot on. Hell scum like Slynt could very well say all the bad he did as commander of the city watch is for his family, Qyburn would probably say his research reveals knowledge that has import to humanity as a whole. 

 

[Brandon Ice-Eyes]

25 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

Isn't anything that anybody does justified according to their own POV? I'm sure Gregor Clegane justifies his actions because they were necessary to carry out his lord's commands. And even the rapes of Elia and the innkeeper's daughter could be justified by "well, I am the lord of Clegane's Keep and I deserve my pleasure."

Same goes for Ramsay, Kraznys, Walder Frey … certainly Cersei justifies her actions, even if it is sending innocent people down to Qyburn to be tortured and mutated.

So to say that Joffrey justifies his own actions is something of a misnomer, no? Isn't the real question whether Joffrey's, or anybody's, actions can be justified under a broader scope? 

I was stating my opinion that from joffreys POV he was justified as I thought that everyone thought that Joffrey beheaded Ned cos he was sadistic. I wasn’t looking at it from everyone else’s POV, just his, hence why I’m not very active on this thread as I’ve realised that most people agree that from his and his only POV, he was justified, believing that Ned was committing high treason deliberately. 

[John Suburbs]

17 hours ago, •Brandon Ice Eyes said:

I was stating my opinion that from joffreys POV he was justified as I thought that everyone thought that Joffrey beheaded Ned cos he was sadistic. I wasn’t looking at it from everyone else’s POV, just his, hence why I’m not very active on this thread as I’ve realised that most people agree that from his and his only POV, he was justified, believing that Ned was committing high treason deliberately. 

Yeah, I'm not saying you're wrong. But even if Joff was a sadist and had no political reason, or any other reason, for executing Ned except to inflict cruelty on someone, that would still be justifiable from Joff's POV, no?

Mayhaps a better example for your point is his treatment of Sansa. Did her beatings, particularly the one after Oxcross, serve any greater purpose for Joff? Or did he do it for simple sadistic cruelty?

[Brandon Ice-Eyes]

28 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

Yeah, I'm not saying you're wrong. But even if Joff was a sadist and had no political reason, or any other reason, for executing Ned except to inflict cruelty on someone, that would still be justifiable from Joff's POV, no?

Mayhaps a better example for your point is his treatment of Sansa. Did her beatings, particularly the one after Oxcross, serve any greater purpose for Joff? Or did he do it for simple sadistic cruelty?

His beatings of Sansa were pure sadistic cruelty. Or maybe in his messed up mind he thought it was justice?

[John Suburbs]

17 minutes ago, •Brandon Ice Eyes said:

His beatings of Sansa were pure sadistic cruelty. Or maybe in his messed up mind he thought it was justice?

Ya sure? I can't speak directly to the other beatings, but after Oxcross:

Quote

"Kneeling won't save you now," the king said. "Stand up. You're here to answer for your brother's latest treasons."

snip

"I'd shot you too, but if I do Mother says they'd kill my uncle Jaime. Instead you'll just be punished and we'll send word to your brother about what happens to you if he doesn't yield."

Here we have Joffrey stating that the reason this is happening is to send Robb a message. Robb just smashed the Lannister host at Oxcross, so this is Joffrey's, and House Lannister's, only way to restrain Robb now that the entire westerlands is open to attack. At the same time, it sends a message to any and all noble houses who may be thinking of joining Robb's cause that the crown has no fear of losing this war despite the recent setbacks, or else they wouldn't dare harm Sansa. So don't even think about committing treason against the crown, because this is what will happen to your loved ones.

Sansa, of course, doesn't understand any of this. She believes this is all personal between her and Joffrey -- and on one level it is. But there is a higher purpose here. And since this is her POV, the reader comes away with the false impression that this is nothing more than Joffrey being cruel -- even though Tyrion pretty much explains the whole thing later in the chapter.

 

 

[Lord Varys]

Joff didn't make this deal. Cersei did. He was not bound by her words, nor did he ever give his word to Eddard Stark. In fact, he makes it clear that he considered his sentence a mercy when talking to Sansa - making it clear he didn't break his word to her, either. Joff likely could have had Ned hanged drawn and quartered, or given him some other proper punishment for traitors.

[Lord Varys]

4 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

Ya sure? I can't speak directly to the other beatings, but after Oxcross:

Here we have Joffrey stating that the reason this is happening is to send Robb a message. Robb just smashed the Lannister host at Oxcross, so this is Joffrey's, and House Lannister's, only way to restrain Robb now that the entire westerlands is open to attack. At the same time, it sends a message to any and all noble houses who may be thinking of joining Robb's cause that the crown has no fear of losing this war despite the recent setbacks, or else they wouldn't dare harm Sansa. So don't even think about committing treason against the crown, because this is what will happen to your loved ones.

Sansa, of course, doesn't understand any of this. She believes this is all personal between her and Joffrey -- and on one level it is. But there is a higher purpose here. And since this is her POV, the reader comes away with the false impression that this is nothing more than Joffrey being cruel -- even though Tyrion pretty much explains the whole thing later in the chapter.

Yeah, it is as if we were saying the Lannister kings of old actually going through with hanging no-name Ironborn hostages whenever there was a raiding, Ned potentially taking Theon's head for Balon's treason, or Aegon II taking Aegon the Younger's ear was strictly 'personal cruelty'.

It was part of the hostage system and supposed to show the world that you don't mess with the Iron Throne without paying the price.

No hostage is worth anything if he is kept in a tower cell no matter what he/she or his/her family do. There is a reason why the Tullys throw Jaime into the meanest dungeon and have him live like shit. They would also be justified taking his head, fingers, hands, feet, etc. for any (severe) transgression Joffrey and the Lannisters did.

In fact, retroactively I find it disappointing that Robb isn't the one who took Jaime's hand. It would have shown that the direwolf actually had some teeth, although I think the proper thing would have been to take his head after the Ned thing and send it to Tywin at Harrenhal.

Doing nothing to him in return was a weakness - and was likely seen as such by the Lannisters and their allies.

[John Suburbs]

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Yeah, it is as if we were saying the Lannister kings of old actually going through with hanging no-name Ironborn hostages whenever there was a raiding, Ned potentially taking Theon's head for Balon's treason, or Aegon II taking Aegon the Younger's ear was strictly 'personal cruelty'.

It was part of the hostage system and supposed to show the world that you don't mess with the Iron Throne without paying the price.

No hostage is worth anything if he is kept in a tower cell no matter what he/she or his/her family do. There is a reason why the Tullys throw Jaime into the meanest dungeon and have him live like shit. They would also be justified taking his heads, fingers, hands, feet, etc. for any (severe) transgression Joffrey and the Lannisters did.

In fact, retroactively I find it disappointing that Robb isn't the one who took Jaime's hand. It would have shown that the direwolf actually had some teeth, although I think the proper thing would have been to take his head after the Ned thing and send it to Tywin at Harrenhal.

Doing nothing to him in return was a weakness - and was likely seen as such by the Lannisters and their allies.

I've always wondered if giving Theon to Ned was such a good idea. Would the honorable Ned, who could not abide the murder of children, actually kill or even harm Theon for the sins of his father? I probably would have handed Theon over to Tywin.

And I think Jaime wound up in the dungeon only after the escape attempt. Before that, wasn't he in a tower cell despite the fact that Sansa was getting beaten regularly by then?

[Lord Varys]

29 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

I've always wondered if giving Theon to Ned was such a good idea. Would the honorable Ned, who could not abide the murder of children, actually kill or even harm Theon for the sins of his father? I probably would have handed Theon over to Tywin.

Apparently Ned prepared himself to do it, if it was necessary. Not sure if he would have gone through with it. It would have been difficult to kill a 10-13-year-old Theon, but the grown man he is in AGoT is a different thing.

29 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

And I think Jaime wound up in the dungeon only after the escape attempt. Before that, wasn't he in a tower cell despite the fact that Sansa was getting beaten regularly by then?

Sure, it was the escape attempt that got him there which was a severe transgression considering that men died during the attempt. I'm not sure Robb ever learned of Sansa's public humiliations. They were done in public, but not necessarily mentioned in official letters sent to Riverrun (and Robb was in the field, anyway). Joff is sending an image to the world that he is not allowing his enemies to get away with victories in the field. It is both a sign of strength - hey, look at me, I don't stick to conventions and do hurt your sister if you defeat my armies in the field - and a sign of weakness considering that hurting Sansa shows his inability to hurt Robb directly.

But in this world I'd say it is better than doing nothing. Which is what the Starks and Tullys did with Jaime.

Not sure what the effect would have been if Tywin had received 'a piece of Lannister' every fortnight or so. The pretends to be a cold fish, but rubbing his powerlessness into his face again and again could goaded him into doing something stupid. Tywin knowing that there was nothing he could do to save his son and heir and the future of his house would have been very hard for him to bear. Especially if he had known that this great and golden boy was slowly turned into a living ruing before he was allowed to die.

Losing Jaime could have been to Tywin what losing Winterfell was for Robb. It was a chance not taken.

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

20 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

Here we have Joffrey stating that the reason this is happening is to send Robb a message. Robb just smashed the Lannister host at Oxcross, so this is Joffrey's, and House Lannister's, only way to restrain Robb now that the entire westerlands is open to attack. At the same time, it sends a message to any and all noble houses who may be thinking of joining Robb's cause that the crown has no fear of losing this war despite the recent setbacks, or else they wouldn't dare harm Sansa. So don't even think about committing treason against the crown, because this is what will happen to your loved ones.

 

19 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Yeah, it is as if we were saying the Lannister kings of old actually going through with hanging no-name Ironborn hostages whenever there was a raiding, Ned potentially taking Theon's head for Balon's treason, or Aegon II taking Aegon the Younger's ear was strictly 'personal cruelty'.

I don’t doubt that Joffery thought that he was “sending a message” to Robb Stark, but only in the childish bullying kind of way. He wasn’t thinking strategically and trying to gain leverage over Robb by harming Sansa. Robb was humiliating him and showing dominance over him, so his response, in typical childish bully fashion, was to regain his own sense of power by humiliating Sansa. It was essentially a tantrum.

Of course, a lot of the motivation was sexual gratification through violence as well, although that’s all mixed up unhealthily with the general motivation of wanting to dominate and humiliate.

He may have justified it in his own mind in any number of ways, but I don’t think it was as calculated as you guys are suggesting.

19 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

No hostage is worth anything if he is kept in a tower cell no matter what he/she or his/her family do. There is a reason why the Tullys throw Jaime into the meanest dungeon and have him live like shit. They would also be justified taking his head, fingers, hands, feet, etc. for any (severe) transgression Joffrey and the Lannisters did.

In fact, retroactively I find it disappointing that Robb isn't the one who took Jaime's hand. It would have shown that the direwolf actually had some teeth, although I think the proper thing would have been to take his head after the Ned thing and send it to Tywin at Harrenhal.

Doing nothing to him in return was a weakness - and was likely seen as such by the Lannisters and their allies.

Some did consider it weakness - Renly and his bannermen certainly thought so when Cat meets them in ACOK.

Still, Cersei did have Sansa (and they thought Arya as well), So doing damage to Jaime would have led to them being harmed. Sure, Joffery slapped Sansa around a bit, but she was relatively safe so long as Jaime wasn’t harmed, particularly once Tyrion arrived.

They were at a stalemate hostages-wise. Each worried what would happen to their relatives if something happened to their hostage.