Joffrey Was Justified in Beheading Ned Stark.

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

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.

Joff still behaves somewhat like the adolescent bully he is, but a grown-up king would have punished any hostage he had, too. I mean, it is just cosmetics whether you beat the hostage in public, have her raped, disfigure, torture, mutilate, or kill her.

And it is always childish behavior. The entire hostage thing is primitive and childish behavior. It is not just to blame innocent people for another person's crime.

1 hour ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

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.

The fact that the thing is a reaction to Robb's victory shows Joff's priorities there. He doesn't humiliate/beat up Sansa all day, he needs a reason. And the sex thing only slowly starts to grow. If Joff had really aimed at the sexual aspects of this thing his threats to Sansa later would have come sooner - and wouldn't have remained threats.

1 hour ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

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.

I don't think he was calculating.

1 hour ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

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.

Within the hostage system Sansa/Arya were already dead once it become clear Robb wasn't willing to exchange Jaime for the girls. Without actually crushing both the Lannisters and Joffrey - a completely impossible prospect after the whole secession thing - there was no way Robb would ever get back his sister(s).

And killing Jaime in repercussion to Ned makes sense - there is no guarantee that this would result in killing the girls. Then the Lannisters would no longer have any hostages, no?

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

1 minute ago, Lord Varys said:

Joff still behaves somewhat like the adolescent bully he is, but a grown-up king would have punished any hostage he had, too. I mean, it is just cosmetics whether you beat the hostage in public, have her raped, disfigure, torture, mutilate, or kill her.

I don't think he would have. Cersei, Tyrion and Tywin are all grown-ups, and none of them suggest hurting Sansa, because they're worried about Jaime. I'm sure that in other circumstances Tywin or Cersei may have harmed her if they saw some gain in it, but I don't think it's a guarantee that all hostages are mistreated when an enemy wins a victory. It seems a bit peevish, and might backfire.

4 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The fact that the thing is a reaction to Robb's victory shows Joff's priorities there. He doesn't humiliate/beat up Sansa all day, he needs a reason

Yes, but his reasoning is, in my opinion, that he feels belittled, small or powerless after Robb wins a victory, and takes it out on Sansa. Abusive men (and boys) often have their “reasons”.

Yes, the sexual thing isn’t the primary motivation, I agree.

7 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Within the hostage system Sansa/Arya were already dead once it become clear Robb wasn't willing to exchange Jaime for the girls. Without actually crushing both the Lannisters and Joffrey - a completely impossible prospect after the whole secession thing - there was no way Robb would ever get back his sister(s).

I don’t follow that reasoning. Robb needed to win enough victories until either the Lannisters were removed from power, or they were forced to allow him to rule independently. At the point of either of those eventualities, the girls could be returned. Killing Jaime immediately would just mean that then Sansa was killed. So long as Jaime was kept alive so was she. That’s what actually happens.

12 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

And killing Jaime in repercussion to Ned makes sense - there is no guarantee that this would result in killing the girls. Then the Lannisters would no longer have any hostages, no?

Sorry, I don't understand that point. If Robb killed Jaime, then we don't know for certain what Cersei would have done to Sansa, but I would bet money on her killing her. Irrespective, what does it achieve? And why would they have no more hostages, because they'd killed them? I'm confused...

[John Suburbs]

40 minutes ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

I don’t follow that reasoning. Robb needed to win enough victories until either the Lannisters were removed from power, or they were forced to allow him to rule independently. At the point of either of those eventualities, the girls could be returned. Killing Jaime immediately would just mean that then Sansa was killed. So long as Jaime was kept alive so was she. That’s what actually happens.

Makes one wonder what Robb would have done had he defeated Tywin in the field and marched on King's Landing. Joffrey/Cersei would still have Sansa, so would Robb hold back from attacking the city for fear of losing Sansa? Would he negotiate a peace with the king who murdered his father, even to the point of allowing his sister to marry that king as long as it resulted in a free and independent kingdom in the north?

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

1 minute ago, John Suburbs said:

Makes one wonder what Robb would have done had he defeated Tywin in the field and marched on King's Landing. Joffrey/Cersei would still have Sansa, so would Robb hold back from attacking the city for fear of losing Sansa? Would he negotiate a peace with the king who murdered his father, even to the point of allowing his sister to marry that king as long as it resulted in a free and independent kingdom in the north?

Robb’s end game is never really clear. I think he was banking on Renly/Stannis capturing Kings Landing so he could avoid that eventuality. Which makes his claims to independence a bit rich, but hey.

Still, if he had defeated Tywin and marched on KL, he would still be in a strong position. He could still use the “I’ll kill Jaime if you hurt Sansa” threat to stop them doing anything to her, while they laid siege to the place. Storming would be trickier, as Cersei and Joffery could just kill Sansa out of spite if they knew they were going to die anyway.

Still, I think in all of Robb’s revenge scenarios, Joffery ends up dead. I can’t see them making peace.

[Lord Varys]

7 hours ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

I don't think he would have. Cersei, Tyrion and Tywin are all grown-ups, and none of them suggest hurting Sansa, because they're worried about Jaime. I'm sure that in other circumstances Tywin or Cersei may have harmed her if they saw some gain in it, but I don't think it's a guarantee that all hostages are mistreated when an enemy wins a victory. It seems a bit peevish, and might backfire.

Tywin is not worried about Jaime. Tywin decides his son is dead when he learns that Joffrey has executed Ned. He knows that he would kill Jaime in retaliation, and he expects the Starks to be men and do just that.

Tywin showed very early that you can just kill yourself if you allow yourself to be intimidated by your enemies taking hostages. Think of the Tarbeck situation - one of the Lannister hostages was Joanna's brother Stafford, but Tywin didn't care. Or rather, he did not allow his feelings to prevent him from projecting strength.

Letting the Ned thing stand showed the world that the Starks didn't have it in them to do anything what it takes to win.

Quote

Yes, but his reasoning is, in my opinion, that he feels belittled, small or powerless after Robb wins a victory, and takes it out on Sansa. Abusive men (and boys) often have their “reasons”.

That is true, but this is a king not just some boy or man needing 'a reason' to beat his wife, daughter, lover, etc. If Joff wanted to blow off some steam he could beat up serving girls, watch them getting beat up, etc.

There is also the payback thing towards Sansa specifically, considering she saw his weakness when Arya beat him up and Nymeria injured him, but this is somewhat in the background already.

Quote

I don’t follow that reasoning. Robb needed to win enough victories until either the Lannisters were removed from power, or they were forced to allow him to rule independently. At the point of either of those eventualities, the girls could be returned. Killing Jaime immediately would just mean that then Sansa was killed. So long as Jaime was kept alive so was she. That’s what actually happens.

Which is why I said they could have crippled, blinded, tortured Jaime - either openly or behind closed doors. They were under no obligation to treat him gently and kindly - not after Ned, and certainly not after his escape attempt.

And the idea that Sansa is safe with the people who executed Ned is pretty stupid, anyway. They should have acted as if Sansa and Arya were did - which Robb did when Sansa became 'Lady Lannister', anyway.

Quote

Sorry, I don't understand that point. If Robb killed Jaime, then we don't know for certain what Cersei would have done to Sansa, but I would bet money on her killing her. Irrespective, what does it achieve? And why would they have no more hostages, because they'd killed them? I'm confused...

Sansa could still be used to lay claim to Winterfell as they later try to do. She is female. Jaime is a man and a danger. Killing him is one step closer to the eventual eradication of House Lannister.

6 hours ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

Robb’s end game is never really clear. I think he was banking on Renly/Stannis capturing Kings Landing so he could avoid that eventuality. Which makes his claims to independence a bit rich, but hey.

Robb and his people never really had a plan. Renly/Stannis would have treated them the same way Joffrey and the Lannisters did. They were seceding, and no Baratheon king had any inclination to allow them to get away with it.

Once Robb was proclaimed king he no longer had any potential allies in the Seven Kingdoms.

He lost the war that day.

[Hugorfonics]

Sansa would never be killed, even if Jaime becomes Reek IV. Shes the north, shes as valuable as half of Westeros. Joffrey may have been able to side step the small council on Neds death but he wouldnt be able to on Sansas. A little girl, its mad and cruel (and politically stupid)

And Cersei and Joffrey have very strong emotions towards Sansa. I bet both wanted her to live. Joffrey likes to scare Sansa. Because of Nymeria, because of Ned bursting in telling Joff hes no king. Joffrey turns on the charm for all, except his uncle and Sansa. Im sure when they got married Joffreys rage mixed with jealousy. And Cersei truly believed she had Sansas best interests at heart, because shes nuts

 

[Varysblackfyre321]

6 hours ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

 

I don’t follow that reasoning. Robb needed to win enough victories until either the Lannisters were removed from power, or they were forced to allow him to rule independently. At the point of either of those eventualities, the girls could be returned. Killing Jaime immediately would just mean that then Sansa was killed. So long as Jaime was kept alive so was she. That’s what actually happens.

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Actually killing Sansa seems short-sighted-without her they have no solid claim to the north. Truth be told given Robb never plans to make peace, and there would be no more hostages that would come close to his sisters worth, killing Jamie seems the most logical course given the man’s continued existence is a  source of contention between Robb and his biggest supporters. The only value Hamie could have is really a trophy or in the fact Tywin loves him-but it becomes abundantly clear, Tywin genuinely will not relent just for Jaimie’s safety and gives up the idea of saving Jaimie-hell Tyrion notes it when Tywin deigns to actually go Tyrion “my son”.

6 hours ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

Robb’s end game is never really clear. I think he was banking on Renly/Stannis capturing Kings Landing so he could avoid that eventuality. Which makes his claims to independence a bit rich, but hey.

Meh, he doesn’t talk of being king until Greatjon says he should-before that he seemed to want to destroy Joffre without the support of the Baratheon brothers given he does not see fit that any should skip Tommen in the line of succession. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

36 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Robb and his people never really had a plan. Renly/Stannis would have treated them the same way Joffrey and the Lannisters did. They were seceding, and no Baratheon king had any indication to allow them to get away with it.

Once Robb was proclaimed king he no longer had any potential allies in the Seven Kingdoms.

He lost the war that day.

This seems a tad far. Renly seemed open to a type of suzerain relationship to where Robb can cause himself “King” so long as he shows submission and aids Renly. That alone should be a massive boon to Robb. 

Stannis would still seek to execute Robb as a traitor-at the very least have Robb relinquish claim to Winterfell and join the watch.

[Lord Varys]

2 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

This seems a tad far. Renly seemed open to a type of suzerain relationship to where Robb can cause himself “King” so long as he shows submission and aids Renly. That alone should be a massive boon to Robb. 

Robb would have still no longer been a real king in the sense of the word. A king is a sovereign monarch, not somebody's vassal. Allowing Robb to keep an empty title would have effectively been nothing but a meaningless gesture. It is quite clear that Renly wanted Robb to swear him fealty and do him homage.

And 'King Robb' had no means to keep his 'kingdom' save from Renly.

2 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Stannis would still seek to execute Robb as a traitor-at the very least have Robb relinquish claim to Winterfell and join the watch.

If Stannis had won at the Blackwater and Robb had afterwards done him homage, I guess he would have been allowed to keep Winterfell. But Stannis would have never considered treating with a man who pretended to be the King in the North and the King of the Trident.

[Varysblackfyre321]

44 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

2 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

 

Robb would have still no longer been a real king in the sense of the word. A king is a sovereign monarch, not somebody's vassal. Allowing Robb to keep an empty title would have effectively been nothing but a meaningless gesture. It is quite clear that Renly wanted Robb to swear him fealty and do him homage.

Meh, yeah he’d be more nominal than a legit king-but even being allowed the title is a massive boon-the Martells are no longer in fact real princes and princesses, but they’re not legally allowed anymore autonomy in how they manage their province than the other lord paramounts. 

And the nominal Kingship is Renly’s starting offer-Robb could probably demand a marriage arrangement between  Baratheon and Stark.

To say he lost the war when he declared for secession is an exaggerating things-the plan of secession was foolish, but it didn’t mean the end of Robb necessarily.

[Lord Varys]

33 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Meh, yeah he’d be more nominal than a legit king-but even being allowed the title is a massive boon-the Martells are no longer in fact real princes and princesses, but they’re not legally allowed anymore autonomy in how they manage their province than the other lord paramounts. 

The Martells are still real princes. In a kingdom there can be princes beneath the king. The Prince of Dorne still rules Dorne, just as he or she did since the days of Mors and Nymeria. Maron Martell accepted Daeron II's overlordship, but Dornish law prevails in Dorne. One even assumes that it was the Martells business what they did in Dorne, as long as they paid their taxes and did homage to the Iron Throne.

Whereas in other regions the king could more or less take and grant castles and titles at will. The idea that the Iron Throne could take Yronwood or Sunspear/Dorne from the Yronwoods or Martells the way they took and gave Brightwater, Harrenhal, Highgarden, etc. doesn't sound likely to me.

33 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

And the nominal Kingship is Renly’s starting offer-Robb could probably demand a marriage arrangement between  Baratheon and Stark.

His starting offer basically is that there won't be an independent kingdom of Robb. Which was the entire point of him crowning himself. How Robb calls himself is irrelevant if the name doesn't mean anything. And that would be the case if Robb had bent the knee to Renly.

33 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

To say he lost the war when he declared for secession is an exaggerating things-the plan of secession was foolish, but it didn’t mean the end of Robb necessarily.

He lost it in the sense Hitler lost the World War II when he invaded the Soviet Union (and declared war on the US) or Napoleon when he invaded Russia. It was no 'guarantee' that he lost because miracles can happen, but Robb crippled his capabilities to forge the necessary alliances to defeat the Lannisters and House Baratheon (which basically also became his enemy now, be its head Joffrey, Tommen, Stannis, or Renly) while his enemies kept that capabilities.

He made other crucial mistakes, too, but the king thing really limited his options. I mean, even an alliance with the Vale would have been difficult under those circumstances. Even if Lysa had been inclined to help Robb, there is no indication that the Lords of the Vale want to secede or do homage to some new king who has no claim whatsoever to the Vale. How do you forge an alliance under such circumstances? It wouldn't have been easy.

The way for the Starks to triumph would have been to watch how the Baratheons and Lannisters ripped each other apart, and then deal with the survivors. A secession could have then stood at the end of their war - like Roose apparently plans now - not in the beginning. That was stupid.

And why stop at the Riverlands and the North. If the Baratheons had killed each other and Robb had eventually defeated the Lannisters in the field, he could have taken the Iron Throne himself. Why not? If the previous royal dynasties are extinguished a new king has to take it. Why not some successful warrior-king?

[Varysblackfyre321]

58 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Quote

 

His starting offer basically is that there won't be an independent kingdom of Robb. Which was the entire point of him crowning himself. How Robb calls himself is irrelevant if the name doesn't mean anything. And that would be the case if Robb had bent the knee to Renly.

Quote

Yes, but Robb gets to save some face. Robb could demand more for his aid.

He did not start warring with the iron throne to become  , he did so to save his father, and when Ned died avenge him-if at the end of the day Robb gets a better title and his revenge it’s unfair to label him a loser-he would have accomplished the main goal.

 

58 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Whereas in other regions the king could more or less take and grant castles and titles at will. The idea that the Iron Throne could take Yronwood or Sunspear/Dorne from the Yronwoods or Martells the way they took and gave Brightwater, Harrenhal, Highgarden, etc. doesn't sound likely to me.

I mean Tyrhos Lannister granted  lordship Sandor’s grandfather and Davos is raised to lordship by Stannis and given land by Stannis.

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

The way for the Starks to triumph would have been to watch how the Baratheons and Lannisters ripped each other apart, and then deal with the survivors. A secession could have then stood at the end of their war - like Roose apparently plans now - not in the beginning. That was stupid.

True. 

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

10 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Tywin is not worried about Jaime. Tywin decides his son is dead when he learns that Joffrey has executed Ned. He knows that he would kill Jaime in retaliation, and he expects the Starks to be men and do just that.

Maybe, but my point is that Tywin didn't suggest, or order, Sansa to be harmed. If it were normal practice, and beneficial, he would have done so.

10 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That is true, but this is a king not just some boy or man needing 'a reason' to beat his wife, daughter, lover, etc. If Joff wanted to blow off some steam he could beat up serving girls, watch them getting beat up, etc.

Of course, but then there are plenty of lesser-born abusers who don't exactly need an excuse. They just convince themselves that they do, or certain things make them kick off. Whenever Joffery feels small, he sends for his favourite punching bag.

10 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

There is also the payback thing towards Sansa specifically, considering she saw his weakness when Arya beat him up and Nymeria injured him, but this is somewhat in the background already.

Good point.

10 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Which is why I said they could have crippled, blinded, tortured Jaime - either openly or behind closed doors. They were under no obligation to treat him gently and kindly - not after Ned, and certainly not after his escape attempt.

I don't see what doing it behind closed doors will achieve. Seems a touch crazy. To send a message, maybe, but then the same thing could happen to Sansa.

10 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Robb and his people never really had a plan. Renly/Stannis would have treated them the same way Joffrey and the Lannisters did. They were seceding, and no Baratheon king had any inclination to allow them to get away with it.

True, though Robb seemed to think that he could make a separate peace with Stannis. In fact, his entire plan rested on that. What we know of Stannis makes us know that's unlikely. Catelyn having treated with Stannis agrees. However, bending the knee to Stannis would have been less of an open hand slap than bending the knee to Joffery. Robb's motivation was revenge, he may have been able to abandon secession.

Renly's offer was actually the cleverest - call yourself king all you like, but give homage. I maintain that the shadowbaby robbed the 7K of one of their best politicians.  

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The way for the Starks to triumph would have been to watch how the Baratheons and Lannisters ripped each other apart, and then deal with the survivors.

That was Stevron Frey's suggestion - Robb's bannermen weren't keen on it.

Plus, they went to war to defeat the Lannisters. He could have done that in alliance with either of the Baratheons, or just waged war and decided who to make peace with after the Lannisters had been defeated, but they couldn't just stand still. Attacking the West was still the way to go.

[Lord Varys]

6 hours ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

Maybe, but my point is that Tywin didn't suggest, or order, Sansa to be harmed. If it were normal practice, and beneficial, he would have done so.

Tywin isn't there and can't order anything, can he? When he is there he knows he'll win the war, crush the Starks, and make use of a living Sansa.

6 hours ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

Of course, but then there are plenty of lesser-born abusers who don't exactly need an excuse. They just convince themselves that they do, or certain things make them kick off. Whenever Joffery feels small, he sends for his favourite punching bag.

That is not what he does. Joff has Sansa occasionally beaten when she, by his standards, misbehaves, but a public humiliation where she is severely beaten up in public, with armored fists slamming into her body, happens only once after the Oxcross thing. And this is also the last time since Tyrion ends the whole thing.

Prior to that Joff just tortures Sansa by showing her heads and by having his KG slap her face when she misbehaves. In a world where physical chastisement of both wives and children is common this isn't exactly surprising.

6 hours ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

I don't see what doing it behind closed doors will achieve. Seems a touch crazy. To send a message, maybe, but then the same thing could happen to Sansa.

It could send a message when the hostages are exchanged.

6 hours ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

True, though Robb seemed to think that he could make a separate peace with Stannis. In fact, his entire plan rested on that. What we know of Stannis makes us know that's unlikely. Catelyn having treated with Stannis agrees. However, bending the knee to Stannis would have been less of an open hand slap than bending the knee to Joffery. Robb's motivation was revenge, he may have been able to abandon secession.

If Robb wanted revenge and defeat the Lannisters the way to get that was to make common cause with other enemies of the Lannisters - not antagonize them, too, which he did when he was proclaimed king. It allowed other enemies of the Lannisters - like the Tyrells - to make common cause with them rather than Robb.

6 hours ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

Renly's offer was actually the cleverest - call yourself king all you like, but give homage. I maintain that the shadowbaby robbed the 7K of one of their best politicians.  

Renly would have eaten Robb alive. He would have smiled and laughed and joked - and in the end Robb would have given up both his crown and his 'kingdom'. Renly only makes this 'keep your title' offer while there are still Lannisters in the field. Once he had defeated them there was no reason to make concession to Robb. Especially if it had fallen to Renly to actually defeat the Lannisters.

6 hours ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

That was Stevron Frey's suggestion - Robb's bannermen weren't keen on it.

Plus, they went to war to defeat the Lannisters. He could have done that in alliance with either of the Baratheons, or just waged war and decided who to make peace with after the Lannisters had been defeated, but they couldn't just stand still. Attacking the West was still the way to go.

They dismissed this suggestion before the stupid one about 'King Robb' came up, though. In a 'King Robb' scenario that one would have been good because they suddenly no longer have any allies. Lord Robb could have counted on the fact that both King Stannis and King Renly might court him. He closed the door to become a valuable ally of both Renly and Stannis with the king thing.

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

32 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Tywin isn't there and can't order anything, can he? When he is there he knows he'll win the war, crush the Starks, and make use of a living Sansa.

He doesn't mention her to Tyrion at all. And he could always send a raven. Given his anger about Jaime, you'd think he'd mention how to treat her if it was what should be done. And like I said, Cersei and Tyrion seem to go out of her way to keep her safe(ish).

33 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

That is not what he does. Joff has Sansa occasionally beaten when she, by his standards, misbehaves, but a public humiliation where she is severely beaten up in public, with armored fists slamming into her body, happens only once after the Oxcross thing. And this is also the last time since Tyrion ends the whole thing.

Prior to that Joff just tortures Sansa by showing her heads and by having his KG slap her face when she misbehaves. In a world where physical chastisement of both wives and children is common this isn't exactly surprising.

He also sends Blount to beat her when Robb declares himself King in the North. That's a pattern.

I don't think we're disagreeing much on this one though. In Joffery's mind, all manner of reasons are mixed up in why he beats Sansa.

35 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

It could send a message when the hostages are exchanged.

I'm starting to worry about you Varys :-)

Yes, all this is true, but I think the main reason all these valid reasons for mutilation and torture, in the case of both Sansa and Jaime, are not acted upon because both the Lannisters and the Starks fear retribution carried out on their respective hostages.

We hear about it multiple times. When Sansa is lost in the riot, Tyrion thinks Jaime will be at risk. When the squires are killed by Karstark, Catelyn worries about whether the Lannisters will take revenge (I think). I think even Joffery, just before Sansa’s beating, says he would kill her, but then Jaime would be killed. The whole point is that they are hostages, and two hostages cancel each other out.

40 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

If Robb wanted revenge and defeat the Lannisters the way to get that was to make common cause with other enemies of the Lannisters - not antagonize them, too, which he did when he was proclaimed king. It allowed other enemies of the Lannisters - like the Tyrells - to make common cause with them rather than Robb.

I agree.

40 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Renly would have eaten Robb alive. He would have smiled and laughed and joked - and in the end Robb would have given up both his crown and his 'kingdom'. Renly only makes this 'keep your title' offer while there are still Lannisters in the field. Once he had defeated them there was no reason to make concession to Robb. Especially if it had fallen to Renly to actually defeat the Lannisters.

I don't know. Maybe. Or he may have just let it slide. Renly may have seen the benefit of making a friend of Robb, and that may have been part of it. Still, it could play out like that, I agree.

42 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

They dismissed this suggestion before the stupid one about 'King Robb' came up, though. In a 'King Robb' scenario that one would have been good because they suddenly no longer have any allies. Lord Robb could have counted on the fact that both King Stannis and King Renly might court him. He closed the door to become a valuable ally of both Renly and Stannis with the king thing.

Agreed. In a strange way, it was something of a cop out. Robb was bound by his own rigid sense of honour. Honour demanded he make war on the Lannisters, but he wouldn’t fight for Renly, as he had no claim at all, and at that point, even Stannis’s claim, to Robb, seemed illegitimate, unless Mycella and Tommen were killed along with Joffery, which I doubt Robb would have liked.

Declaring himself king was a kind of compromise where he didn’t have to do a “wrong” thing. This is the essence of his and Ned’s approach to politics (hiding from it).

If he had waited until Stannis’s ravens flew about the twincest, he probably would have sided with him. Interestingly, when Catelyn hears about it, she seems to think along those lines, wanting to call a Great Council.

[Starkz]

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.

You can justify everything in this world, still doesn’t make it right though.

[Lord Varys]

44 minutes ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

He doesn't mention her to Tyrion at all. And he could always send a raven. Given his anger about Jaime, you'd think he'd mention how to treat her if it was what should be done. And like I said, Cersei and Tyrion seem to go out of her way to keep her safe(ish).

One assumes he would wait with that until Jaime was actually killed.

44 minutes ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

He also sends Blount to beat her when Robb declares himself King in the North. That's a pattern.

But also triggered by something her family did. I mean, honestly, what do we expect him to do after what Robb pulls? Sup with her and treat her as courteously as he possibly could? In a world where people actually believe that 'traitor's blood' is hereditary?

44 minutes ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

Yes, all this is true, but I think the main reason all these valid reasons for mutilation and torture, in the case of both Sansa and Jaime, are not acted upon because both the Lannisters and the Starks fear retribution carried out on their respective hostages.

We hear about it multiple times. When Sansa is lost in the riot, Tyrion thinks Jaime will be at risk. When the squires are killed by Karstark, Catelyn worries about whether the Lannisters will take revenge (I think). I think even Joffery, just before Sansa’s beating, says he would kill her, but then Jaime would be killed. The whole point is that they are hostages, and two hostages cancel each other out.

Tywin doesn't fear any of that. Tyrion and Cersei care about Jaime very much. Tywin loves his son, too, presumably, but he does not allow himself to be intimidated by that.

Overall, though, women are rarely killed or mistreated all that much. Rhaenyra did spare both Helaena and Alicent, and she had much more reason to flay Alicent alive than, say, Joffrey or the Lannisters had to mistreat Sansa.

44 minutes ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

I don't know. Maybe. Or he may have just let it slide. Renly may have seen the benefit of making a friend of Robb, and that may have been part of it. Still, it could play out like that, I agree.

Renly has a ruthless streak he hides pretty well. He wanted the Targaryens to be killed and he had enough ambition to claim the Iron Throne against both his nephews and niece and his older brother. If he was prepared to kill his own family - which he must have been to do what he did - I see no reason to assume he would not also lie to, fool, or even kill Catelyn/Robb.

44 minutes ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

Agreed. In a strange way, it was something of a cop out. Robb was bound by his own rigid sense of honour. Honour demanded he make war on the Lannisters, but he wouldn’t fight for Renly, as he had no claim at all, and at that point, even Stannis’s claim, to Robb, seemed illegitimate, unless Mycella and Tommen were killed along with Joffery, which I doubt Robb would have liked.

Declaring himself king was a kind of compromise where he didn’t have to do a “wrong” thing. This is the essence of his and Ned’s approach to politics (hiding from it).

If he had waited until Stannis’s ravens flew about the twincest, he probably would have sided with him. Interestingly, when Catelyn hears about it, she seems to think along those lines, wanting to call a Great Council.

They were under no pressure to make such a silly decision then and there. They could have just continued the war against the Lannisters - as they did, anyway.

And, frankly, without them knowing what Ned did and what happened at KL his actions were just rebellion. He had no proof that his father was not a traitor, and this world isn't a place where anyone can just take up arms just because he believes his father was unjustly imprisoned or executed by the king.