The Ramsey's list and the true goal of the Pink Letter

[dialt]

1 hour ago, divica said:

First, unless there is someone sending letters from the Wall to winterfell there isn t enough time for anyone to know that there is an army of wildlings on the Wall. (we have no indication that such traitor exists (no even the IT receives letters from a possible traitor on the Wall) and there is no mention of an army of wildlings in the PL so lets assume the Bolton don t receive letters from the Wall). So from everyone's point of view jon only has his brothers and a couple of wildlings with him.

 

The north knows there is an army of wildlings since AGOT.

Beside that, in ADWD Theon says that Jon and Stannis have made common cause. To do what? To fight the wildlings army.... and then?

The letter itself - in fact - is proof that the author knows not only that Mance was "excecuted", but how he was and what happened that day. Meaning there's no reason to believe the author - if Ramsey - doesn't knows that the wildlings were allowed (that day) to pass the Wall after having bend the knee.  And if the author is Mance or Stannis, of course he knows.

Not to mention, that the letter says that Mance was executed "for all the North to see". Meaning that most likely Stannis made aware the North not only that Mance was executed, but also about the rest. He defeted the wildlings, which is great, but also made them bend the knee. Something they have never done before and that may/should impress the North.

1 hour ago, divica said:

 Second, shireen is super important. Anyone that marries her has a claim to the IT. At the very least they can sell her for a fortune to someone interested in the throne. And selyse and mel have lots of political value. how much would the lannisters and tyrells pay for them?

 

 As I said at least twice in the latest post, Shireen may have a claim (thus political value), as Stannis only living child. But not her husband. At all. You don't inherit the claim to the thorne by marriage. The line of succession is determined by blood.... only. That is why, Selyse hasn't value as Stannis widow, but she may protect,support her daugther, help her and maybe in 10 years time things may change. That is why - I said - whoever rules at KL may want to get rid of Shireen and Selyse too. But at the moment they are powerless, given that Stannis's army - if the PL has to be believed - was destroyed. They don't have powerfull allies. The lands of their supporters are lost (we are repitetly told they are in ADWD) or about to be. just like Stannis seat: Dragonstone. They are not by any mean an immediate threat. So you won't pay a fortune. The Crown, if ruthless, may get rid of them... whenever it wants to. Or the Crown may pardon them, or just send them into exile.  Because of that, you may pay a ransom. But not a fortune. And at the moment, not: no one knows about the IB too.

Mel has 0 political value. At least.... she may have a monetary value. But how much? If you don't spend a fortune for Stannis heir, you surely don't for a witch, with 0 actual power. 

1 hour ago, divica said:

Third, it is important to note that the boltons have to kill jon as fast as possible. he can t spread that farya isn t arya or that bran and rickon are alive (reek knows it). It would colapse the boton power over the north. So by sending that letter they are provoking a mutinee because the night watchers don t want to die protecting all these people from the boltons. It isn t in their vows and they have no reason to do it. therefore their only option is to get rid of jon and do as ramsay wants in order to save themselves (remember, from ramsay pov he doesn t know about the wildling army).

 

Did you read my op? I said that is the PL's purpose, if Ramsey/Roose wrote it.

I don't think however, that the point is to provoke the conspirancy. There are plenty of clues - imo - that point to the idea that the munity starts to take shape well before the PL. That is something those men were going to do with or without the PL. 

[three-eyed monkey]

For me, there's just too much stacked against Ramsay writing the letter. My top 7:

1/ I think, given the choice, Ramsay hunts the girl through the woods, right to Castle Black if he had to. If he does ride out after Jeyne and Theon, as Theon thinks he will, then I don't see him returning until he has her or he's dead.

2/ The letter is missing a number of things associated with previous letters from Ramsay. Spiky hand, written in blood, a piece of Mance or spearwife, the signatures of the northern lords. I think if the letter was from Ramsay then GRRM would have made that clear. I would argue that instead he has made it clear it is not from Ramsay.

3/ The Boltons know Arya is fake. Why would they even inform Jon they lost her? Why would they ask Jon to return her when he would know it's not her? Why would they risk giving Jon that leverage over them when, if the letter is true, they have all the leverage they need over Jon hanging in a cage in Winterfell?

4/ GRRM has given Stannis a stated goal regarding Jon in the text, and put in place an obstacle to that goal, namely Jon's vows. The Pink Letter could be seen as an attempt to overcome that obstacle and achieve that goal. Show me a similar set up regarding Jon or the Night's Watch from the Bolton point of view.

5/ I think Stannis is more likely to use the term "Wildling Princess" than Ramsay. why would a northman consider her a wildling princess?

6/ I think it is far more likely for Stannis to have quoted Theon, "I want my bride. And I want my Reek" than Ramsay come up with that phrase randomly.

7/ The Pink Letter really hit a nerve with Jon and I think it is again far more likely that it was constructed by someone who knows Jon.

[divica]

11 minutes ago, lalt said:

The north knows there is an army of wildlings since AGOT.

Beside that, in ADWD Theon says that Jon and Stannis have made common cause. To do what? To fight the wildlings army.... and then?

The letter itself - in fact - is proof that the author knows not only that Mance was "excecuted", but how he was and what happened that day. Meaning there's no reason to believe the author - if Ramsey - doesn't knows that the wildlings were allowed (that day) to pass the Wall after having bend the knee.  And if the author is Mance or Stannis, of course he knows.

Not to mention, that the letter says that Mance was executed "for all the North to see". Meaning that most likely Stannis made aware the North not only that Mance was executed, but also about the rest. He defeted the wildlings, which is great, but also made them bend the knee. Something they have never done before and that may/should impress the North.

 

WHAT???

You are really confused. After stannis defeats the wildlings he only captures a few of them (I don t remember the exact number but they weren t a lot. I would say a lot less than 500). 

The wildling army that comes to the Wall are the 3000 or 4000 that comes with tormund that arrives about 3 days before jon is stabbed.

16 minutes ago, lalt said:

 As I said at least twice in the latest post, Shireen may have a claim (thus political value), as Stannis only living child. But not her husband. At all. You don't inherit the claim to the thorne by marriage. The line of succession is determined by blood.... only. That is why, Selyse hasn't value as Stannis widow, but she may protect,support her daugther, help her and maybe in 10 years time things may change. That is why - I said - whoever rules at KL may want to get rid of Shireen and Selyse too. But at the moment they are powerless, given that Stannis's army - if the PL has to be believed - was destroyed. They don't have powerfull allies. The lands of their supporters are lost (we are repitetly told they are in ADWD) or about to be. just like Stannis seat: Dragonstone. They are not by any mean an immediate threat. So you won't pay a fortune. The Crown, if ruthless, may get rid of them... whenever it wants to. Or the Crown may pardon them, or just send them into exile.  Because of that, you may pay a ransom. But not a fortune. And at the moment, not: no one knows about the IB too.

you should talk with tywin. He had some crazy idea about marrying sansa and tyrion in order to have a claim to winterfell. The important thing about marriages is that they produce kids and that parents can lend support to their kid claim. Hell, robert wanted viserys AND DANNY dead since they were kids for some reason no? 

Remember that you are talking about asoiaf univerrse….

22 minutes ago, lalt said:

Did you read my op? I said that is PL's purpose, if Ramsey/Roose wrote it.

I don't think however, that the point is to provoke the conspirancy. There are plenty of clues -imo - that the munity starts to take place well before the PL arrives. That is something those men were going to do with or without the PL. 

No, I just read my last post.

But the point is that the moment jon reads the letter from a Bolton pov it garantees there is a mutiny. There can t be other reaction. A bunch of criminals are being threatned that they will die if they don t deliver a bunch of people that aren t part of the watch and their comander refuses to hand them over…

[divica]

12 minutes ago, three-eyed monkey said:

For me, there's just too much stacked against Ramsay writing the letter. My top 7:

1/ I think, given the choice, Ramsay hunts the girl through the woods, right to Castle Black if he had to. If he does ride out after Jeyne and Theon, as Theon thinks he will, then I don't see him returning until he has her or he's dead.

 

According to the letter ramsay was occupied fighting stannis. So he thinks he can t catch her anymore.

14 minutes ago, three-eyed monkey said:

2/ The letter is missing a number of things associated with previous letters from Ramsay. Spiky hand, written in blood, a piece of Mance or spearwife, the signatures of the northern lords. I think if the letter was from Ramsay then GRRM would have made that clear. I would argue that instead he has made it clear it is not from Ramsay.

I somewhat agree. But we don t know what has happened in winterfell during the battle… But the letter is such a smart idea (in order to make the night watcher revolt against jon) that it might have been written by roose and written as ramsay. He knows how the bastard stigma is important for bastards...

14 minutes ago, three-eyed monkey said:

3/ The Boltons know Arya is fake. Why would they even inform Jon they lost her? Why would they ask Jon to return her when he would know it's not her? Why would they risk giving Jon that leverage over them when, if the letter is true, they have all the leverage they need over Jon hanging in a cage in Winterfell?

This is illogical. They don t inform jon they lost her. They think she is at the Wall with jon. And they want jon to return her because the north thinks she is arya. And if arya is at the Wall jon already has leverage over them. On the whole this point doesn t make sense.

14 minutes ago, three-eyed monkey said:

4/ GRRM has given Stannis a stated goal regarding Jon in the text, and put in place an obstacle to that goal, namely Jon's vows. The Pink Letter could be seen as an attempt to overcome that obstacle and achieve that goal. Show me a similar set up regarding Jon or the Night's Watch from the Bolton point of view.

Again this isn t logical. After Reading the letter, as stannis doesn t know that there is a wildling army he would suppose that jon will send farya and his familly away to essos and prepare the defenses of castle black. How can the PL tempt jon to break his vows? he can t rescue mance nor attack winterfell… he has no army!

14 minutes ago, three-eyed monkey said:

5/ I think Stannis is more likely to use the term "Wildling Princess" than Ramsay. why would a northman consider her a wildling princess?

we can see from jon's pov that the north doesn t know all that much about wildling society. Besides, ramsay would have learned that term from torturing southerns from stannis army.

14 minutes ago, three-eyed monkey said:

7/ The Pink Letter really hit a nerve with Jon and I think it is again far more likely that it was constructed by someone who knows Jon.

Are you actually saying that awkward and unsocial stannis that only met lord snow understands jon better than someone that knows what it means to be a bastard? someone that probably knows stories about the bastard of winterfell? This is actually an argument for stannis not writting the letter.

[Nevets]

55 minutes ago, three-eyed monkey said:

1/ I think, given the choice, Ramsay hunts the girl through the woods, right to Castle Black if he had to. If he does ride out after Jeyne and Theon, as Theon thinks he will, then I don't see him returning until he has her or he's dead.

Given that Mors Umber is right outside the gates, it's likely going to be pretty immediately obvious that she was taken to Stannis's camp.  At that point, she is out of reach.  It's quite possible he knows that Stannis sent her to CB, hence the demand for her return.  He may be giving himself a causus belli, or he may believe that, because she is not really his sister, that Jon might be willing to return her (doubtful, but who knows)

58 minutes ago, three-eyed monkey said:

2/ The letter is missing a number of things associated with previous letters from Ramsay. Spiky hand, written in blood, a piece of Mance or spearwife, the signatures of the northern lords. I think if the letter was from Ramsay then GRRM would have made that clear. I would argue that instead he has made it clear it is not from Ramsay

 We've seen two letters that I recall from Ramsay; the one to Asha, and the one to Jon announcing the wedding.  Only Asha's included spiky writing and skin.  The one to Jon was plain vanilla, with a spiky signature.  As for the absence of signatures, it is likely that Ramsay is keeping some of the details secret from his guests at Winterfell.

@divica  addressed the other points quite adequately.

[dialt]

@divica... seriously. The letter tells that the so called king beyond the Wall is alive but hold as an hostage in a cage at Winterfell. It doesn’t matter how many wildlings are at the Wall. I think there are more than that, but that’s not the point.  All that matters is if they are there. And they surely are. And among those who bend the knee, there are leaders of the FF. And the author knows it if he knows everything that happened the day Mance was "executed". More importantly, what matters is... what kind of relationship they have with Jon. And the letter also informs us, that the author knows... that Jon saved Mance. That Stannis didn’t kill him for real. If he wanted to provoke them too - other than Jon - mission accomplished. Easily. The only thing Jon has to do, is reading the letter (or to speak) to a few FF leaders, and job done.

As it is.

That said, again. I believe Sheerin has political value. As the only child/heir of Stannis. But what you are missing, imo, is... power. And the value that actual power has in ASOIF. Ramsey as a widower can claim lady Hoornwood’s lands, not because he has the right to do so, but because he has the power to do so, Because his father is the Wadern of the North and the Crown supports his family. Change one of those assets, and you'll see other and better claims on those lands rising again. That said, sure Sheerin’s children may inherit her claim. But she is still a child. A powerless child. And... not only winter is coming and she may die any time soon at the Wall, but the war costed a fortune. 

So, if the question is, has Shireen political value? The answer is again, yes. If the question is, is it safer for the Crown to kill her? Then again, it is (if you want to be 100% sure). But is it something you need to do tomorrow? Not. And since what matters are her and her potential kids, but she is still a kid herself and a traitor - from the Crown's pov- someone that may be executed, with not lands, allies and a father, the Crown may choose... to offer her not only pardon but a marriage into the Lannister family and job done. A good, fair deal that won’t cost the King a fortune.

That is to say, that there are hundred of ways to solve that issue. And just because of that... you don’t pay a fortune, tomorrow morning, to have her or to have her killed. Robert waited for Dany to get married before making that decision. He waited more that 15 years. He didn’t pay a fortune the day after she and his brother escaped.

Therefore, since the other question was how much one would pay for them by the time the PL is written, my POV  is that the day the pink letter has been written, her life wasn’t worth a... fortune. 

Edit: if to quote your words (to which I agree) all Jon has to do is to unveil the ruse to hurt seriously the basis of the Ramsey’s claim so much so the Boltons needs to kill Jon... then they cannot believe fArya is already there.  If they think she’s there, demanding  those people is in fact... pointless. It won’t change a jota. All Jon has to do... is letting the SK know and the Boltons are fu****.  On the contrary demanding those people just because fArya is not arrived - yet - and they want to force Jon to leave CB before she can possibly do so (and then to kill him) that is a far more logical reason to ask for them, than any other explanation about any sort of  debatable value all those people (not Sheerin only) may have for Ramsey. 

[three-eyed monkey]

1 hour ago, divica said:

According to the letter ramsay was occupied fighting stannis. So he thinks he can t catch her anymore.

Of course he could catch her over 600 miles. If he sent any ravens it was to the Dreadfort or other Bolton allied houses to cut her off. There is no way the battle lasted seven days in those conditions. There is no way Stannis army lasted seven more days without food, never mind seven days of battle.

1 hour ago, divica said:

I somewhat agree. But we don t know what has happened in winterfell during the battle… But the letter is such a smart idea (in order to make the night watcher revolt against jon) that it might have been written by roose and written as ramsay. He knows how the bastard stigma is important for bastards...

Sending a letter and hoping it provokes someone into killing Jon is NOT a smarter idea than sending someone to kill Jon. And if you have Mance in a cage then you have grounds to have Jon executed.

 

1 hour ago, divica said:

This is illogical. They don t inform jon they lost her. They think she is at the Wall with jon. And they want jon to return her because the north thinks she is arya. And if arya is at the Wall jon already has leverage over them. On the whole this point doesn t make sense.

No, this is illogical. I want my bride back means that they no longer have her, and that informs Jon of that fact. The raven arrived at Castle Black before Jeyne did. She might never get there for all they know.

If Ramsays bride gets to the Wall Jon will obviously know it is Jeyne not Arya and then he will have leverage over them as he could inform the North that the wedding was a lie. Do you really think they could expect Jon to just send her back and go along with their lie. That's ridiculous.

1 hour ago, divica said:

Again this isn t logical. After Reading the letter, as stannis doesn t know that there is a wildling army he would suppose that jon will send farya and his familly away to essos and prepare the defenses of castle black. How can the PL tempt jon to break his vows? he can t rescue mance nor attack winterfell… he has no army!

But you said the letter was very smart because it made Jon react in a way that provoked the Watch to kill him. Ramsay didn't know about the wildling army either, so according to your reasoning  he should also suppose Jon will send farya and family away and prepare the defense of Castle Black. This is illogical and that's why you are contradicting yourself.

 

1 hour ago, divica said:

we can see from jon's pov that the north doesn t know all that much about wildling society. Besides, ramsay would have learned that term from torturing southerns from stannis army.

Ramsay might have learned those terms from Stannis knights, but why would he use those terms when writing to Jon? Stannis uses the term. As I said it is far more likely that they are Stannis words. This is just more grasping at straws against textual evidence. It's weak.

 I see you skipped 6. No straws to grasp there?

1 hour ago, divica said:

Are you actually saying that awkward and unsocial stannis that only met lord snow understands jon better than someone that knows what it means to be a bastard? someone that probably knows stories about the bastard of winterfell? This is actually an argument for stannis not writting the letter.

Am I saying that Stannis who spent time with Jon and saw him in action, took his counsel, could see he was stubborn and honorable, all of which can be supported in the text, knew Jon better than someone who never met Jon and might have heard stories, none of which are supported in the text? Yes.

 

1 hour ago, Nevets said:

 

@divica  addressed the other points quite adequately.

Hardly.

 

[Mon ami]

Anybody who knows the White Walkers are coming and then writes that letter to lure Jon away from the wall is an irresponsible jerk who deserve to get their heads removed.  And a lord commander irresponsible enough to let a letter like this lure him away from his duties at the wall deserve to get assassinated.  

Stannis is a vain and selfish man but I don't believe he would lure the defenders away from the wall just to save his butt from the Boltons.  Mance Rayder is a lawless outlaw but he is not fool enough to lure away the defense from the wall when he knows full well what's coming.  Defend the wall and they might have a chance to survive.  Lure the defenses away and they all die.  It's not rocket science.  It's common sense and logic.  The person who wrote that letter is someone who doesn't know what's coming:  Ramsay Bolton.  This should put to rest who authored the letter.  It could cross his mind that the wall's defenders might leave their posts to mount an attack.  But since he doesn't believe the WW are coming, it wouldn't matter to him.  The most direct motivation for writing the letter is getting back his wife.  The other requests are icing on the cake.  

Yeah so he wrote the letter to Jon.  He is asking for his wife and his POW, Theon Greyjoy.  Perfectly understandable and he would have no reason to expect non-cooperation from the Watch.  What idiot would trade the safety of the Nightswatch for one girl and one man?  A big idiot indeed.  

[The Mother of The Others]

Every author has reason to lie about the battle.   (No battle has taken place yet.)   Ramsay wants the watch to believe stan is dead so they'll shift gears and boot out the remaining stan people, because that arrangement is over if stan is dead.  And jon is likely to be kicked out with them.   Then, the people requested in the letter will be turned over.

Stan as the author knows he could never convince jon to do jack shit, so he wants to see what jon does in a post-stannis world, when it's jon's goose that's cooked.  Will jon act now?

[dialt]

@Empress Daenerys Targaryen good points. But... if you want to defend the Wall and what stands south of the Wall from the WWs, then a North unified is important as well. So is the Stark name to lead the North and to gather all the streght needed.

That is - if I remember correctly - Quorin's reasoning when he talks to Mormont.
He says that they need the Starks. And he says that believing that the problem is not only Mance, but the WWs too.

I remeber a conversation like that, not sure if it is between those two... but either way, that's the point.
Stannis can see that too.

And Mance is clever enough to understand/hope that Jon may be not only the one who puts together the North, but the North and the FF.

But then again... yours are surely interesting, fair points.

[dialt]

7 hours ago, The Mother of The Others said:

Then, the people requested in the letter will be turned over.

Why? I mean... It's not that there are 0 chances fArya will ever arrive at CB. If she does, all Jon has do it is telling the truth (putting aside the question Theon/Reek and what he may confess). If that happens, why the Boltons should care about Selyse, Mel, etc... ?
I mean: even tho those people may have some value - let's say they do, for the sake of the argument - still the problem for the Boltons is another one and it won't be fixed by claming/obtaining those people. They are pointless from this pov. 
Unless what the Boltons want is to provoke the munity. But while there are hints pointing to the idea that the munity is a thing well before the PL, there are no clues that the Boltons know about it. And evenif they do: they don't need the PL. Just a message (or a killer) to give them the green light.
Or... just like in Stannis's case - but for different reasons - they want to provoke that reaction in Jon.

[three-eyed monkey]

3 hours ago, lalt said:

Why? I mean... It's not that there are 0 chances fArya will ever arrive at CB. If she does, all Jon has do it is telling the truth (putting aside the question Theon/Reek and what he may confess). If that happens, why the Boltons should care about Selyse, Mel, etc... ?
I mean: even tho those people may have some value - let's say they do, for the sake of the argument - still the problem for the Boltons is another one and it won't be fixed by claming/obtaining those people. They are pointless from this pov. 
Unless what the Boltons want is to provoke the munity. But while there are hints pointing to the idea that the munity is a thing well before the PL, there are no clues that the Boltons know about it. And evenif they do: they don't need the PL. Just a message (or a killer) to give them the green light.
Or... just like in Stannis's case - but for different reasons - they want to provoke that reaction in Jon.

I agree with this. No chance the author of the letter, regardless of who it was, could have thought at the time they wrote it that the letter would result in Jon being stabbed. Sending an assassin would be a much better bet if killing Jon was the goal. If Ramsay is so good that he can kill his intended victim with a letter then the faceless men are going out of business.

 

[The Commentator]

19 hours ago, lalt said:

My OP tries in fact to prove that the PL letter purpose is to provoke Jon. and that those women and children are demanded just because they are women and children and Jon won't accept that ultimatum. Not because of their political values, ties of blood etc...

In short, not because they are "important" for the author, but because they are to Jon and they are for the very simple reason that they are women and children.

That said, I believe that among them, Shireen - as the only heir of Stannis - may have some value (her mother only because she may help her, à la Margeret of Agiou). The idea is... the Crown can't exclude that in a x years time the context may change and she will be able to claim the throne. From this pov whoever rules at KL may want to get rid of Shireen too. That's all...

I agree about Val and Mance's son.

And more importantly, I agree with the idea that if the PL tells true (or a lot of true)... there's no battle coming for the Boltons. To say better: there should not be. They are in the position to fight anymore.

Stannis is dead, the few men left with his wife are probably going to take the black to be forgiven. And dead are all the lordlings not loyal to the Boltons. Their heads upon WF walls. It's almost perfect.

That's why it makes no sense- imo - to provoke not only Jon, but the wildilings too... to provoke them to the point they choose what they choose: to go fight Ramsey. Because....

sure, they may not care about the blood line to choose who lead them (they don't)... but they may care about revenge. More importantly theauthor is telling them that Mance - their last chosen King - is still alive but  prisoner at WF. Whereas Jon and the late Stannis - as the letter conveniently informs the wildlings - have only faked Mance's death.

So if Ramsey believes that for the FF blood matters, he's pushing them to defend the child. If he knows they don't care about it... he's pushing them to avenge/try to save Mance. In short, it doesn't really matter what Ramsey may know about the FF culture. He's giving them plenty of reasons to join Jon in a revenge expedition. 

And that's incredibly stupid for the Boltons. Because they are in the position to not fight anymore. Unless... that's what they want. And if that's what they want, they must have a very good reason to do so. And the only reason good enough to put themselves in this position, is that the Boltons are afraid of the consequences of a meeting fArya/Jon and maybe Theon/Jon too. So Jon has to leave the Wall as soon as he can, to die not having meet fArya (and maybe Theon too).

But that Jon leaves immediately with an army, is what someone else (Stannis or Mance, or them both) wants too, if he wrote the PL.

Because, I agree...

I think Stannis as author holds better if he hasn't take at least Winterfell. 

 

It would be rather selfish and self-serving for Stannis and Mance to trick Jon Snow away from the wall.  I mean, they know the white walkers are coming.  I dislike Mance and dislike Stannis even more, but I don't think they would do this.  Furthermore, the goal of the P/L was not to take Jon and his soldiers from the wall.  That would be beyond stupidity.  The letter is plain and simple.  Ramsay Bolton wants fArya, Reek, and the remnants of the rebels surrendered to him.  He has a right to do this because they defeated Stannis.  The rebels lost their cause.  The wall should not harbor these rebels.

[The Commentator]

14 hours ago, Empress Daenerys Targaryen said:

Anybody who knows the White Walkers are coming and then writes that letter to lure Jon away from the wall is an irresponsible jerk who deserve to get their heads removed.  And a lord commander irresponsible enough to let a letter like this lure him away from his duties at the wall deserve to get assassinated.  

Stannis is a vain and selfish man but I don't believe he would lure the defenders away from the wall just to save his butt from the Boltons.  Mance Rayder is a lawless outlaw but he is not fool enough to lure away the defense from the wall when he knows full well what's coming.  Defend the wall and they might have a chance to survive.  Lure the defenses away and they all die.  It's not rocket science.  It's common sense and logic.  The person who wrote that letter is someone who doesn't know what's coming:  Ramsay Bolton.  This should put to rest who authored the letter.  It could cross his mind that the wall's defenders might leave their posts to mount an attack.  But since he doesn't believe the WW are coming, it wouldn't matter to him.  The most direct motivation for writing the letter is getting back his wife.  The other requests are icing on the cake.  

Yeah so he wrote the letter to Jon.  He is asking for his wife and his POW, Theon Greyjoy.  Perfectly understandable and he would have no reason to expect non-cooperation from the Watch.  What idiot would trade the safety of the Nightswatch for one girl and one man?  A big idiot indeed.  

 That was great.  

The worst of all possible times to trick people away from defending the wall.  Ramsay wrote that letter to get his wife back.

[The Commentator]

On 12/1/2018 at 12:25 AM, Silver Bullet 1985 said:

I believe Ramsay wrote the Pink Letter because he wanted those people in his custody.  Ramsay wrote the Pink Letter in the hopes of getting what he wanted with little further work on his part.  The Bolton forces are war weary from their victory over Stannis.  The last thing they want is another war.  But all of this is just discussion for the sake of discussion.  Whoever wrote the letter and whatever his intentions might be, Jon chose to commit treason.  Jon chose to betray the Night's Watch.  His acts of treason were brought to light by the Pink Letter and he was forced to make a public admission of guilt.  The letter exposed all of Jon's illegal activities.  He got caught with his pants down.  Jon compounded his poor choices by announcing his intent to further cause problems and attack the Boltons with an army of wildlings.  The men of the Night's Watch had no choice but to take him out.   

Who wrote the letter and what his intent might have been does not change the fact that Jon already broke his vows.  He gave Mance Rayder, the worst criminal known, a free pass and ordered the man to get his sister.  That is very inappropriate and illegal for a lord commander to do.  He sent a sworn brother of the Night's Watch to do something illegal.  I might also add that this sworn brother of the night's watch committed murder while guesting with the Boltons and is thus guilty of breaking guest rights.  All under Jon's orders and while performing the mission that Jon ordered him to do.  

 

Exactly.  I hope the op is not trying to find a loophole to excuse Jon's actions because there is none.  

[dialt]

1 hour ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

Exactly.  I hope the op is not trying to find a loophole to excuse Jon's actions because there is none.  

Just read the OP. I said the contrary. Jon telling his brothers he won't ask them to forswear their vows, to me if proof that he knows that's what he is doing. 
Also, the OP in my eyes holds argumentents that serve better the idea that Ramsey (or Roose) is the author.
Sorry, but I still don't think Ramsey has any urgency to ask for those people and not reason to ask for some of them. He won, so? Still if the letter has to be trusted, if he lost tracks of fArya (and possibly of Theon too, according the PL) he should be focused on something else.

All his claim on WF and most of the Boltons power are based on 2 lies: that the girl is Arya Stark and that Theon killed the last 2 legitiamte male heirs of lord Eddard. I guess he cares about that, not that much about those people. They are just a trick. So that he'll get the chance to kill Jon in battle or later as a traitor and Jon won't ever get the chance to meet fArya (and possibly Theon) and then let the SK know the truth.
Why given the context, and his far more serius problems, Ramsey should care about all those people.... for real (beside his wife)?  Why to provoke the FF, if he is in the position to not fight anymore and winter is really coming? Why... if he really lost tracks of fArya and Theon, wasting any time going back to Winterfell instead of going into huntig her/them directly, after the battle? Why if is not scared of harming the NW... he just doesn't show up there? Why, in other words, to give up his best weapon: the surprise effect? Why he didn't tortured/interrogated any survivor of Stannis's army, to know fArya's and Theon's whereabouts? If so (because  that's what you may expect  a Bolton to do) he should know that Theon was there.... and I guess he does, if he wrote the PL. But he had a good reason to mention Reek.
Because that is not to say he didn't wrote the letter. That is to say he had far more good reasons to wrote the PL exactly the way it's written, rather than being a sociopath.

At the same time, sorry again, I also believe that the way we judge some charaters has little to do with storywise. They may be jerks. Fine, but still....

ADwD is meant (among many other thiings) to build pov after pov the climax of Jon finally forswearing his vows (and dying).

And Stannis is the same man that had his borther killed with a witchcraft. And that "saved" Mance....

Whereas Mance.... he knows better than others how it's hard to make Jon turn/forget his cloak... for real.

And what is the plan he and Melisandre have/share, because we know they do [Melisandre I, ADWD], so much so, they say they need to gain Jon's trust? To do what?

But... we can still agree to disagree.

 

[Tagganaro]

15 hours ago, Empress Daenerys Targaryen said:

Anybody who knows the White Walkers are coming and then writes that letter to lure Jon away from the wall is an irresponsible jerk who deserve to get their heads removed.  And a lord commander irresponsible enough to let a letter like this lure him away from his duties at the wall deserve to get assassinated.  

Stannis is a vain and selfish man but I don't believe he would lure the defenders away from the wall just to save his butt from the Boltons.  Mance Rayder is a lawless outlaw but he is not fool enough to lure away the defense from the wall when he knows full well what's coming.  Defend the wall and they might have a chance to survive.  Lure the defenses away and they all die.  It's not rocket science.  It's common sense and logic.  The person who wrote that letter is someone who doesn't know what's coming:  Ramsay Bolton.  This should put to rest who authored the letter.  It could cross his mind that the wall's defenders might leave their posts to mount an attack.  But since he doesn't believe the WW are coming, it wouldn't matter to him.  The most direct motivation for writing the letter is getting back his wife.  The other requests are icing on the cake.  

 

I just disagree with the premise that the letter was written to lure Jon away from the Wall.  As you said, Jon's actions were "irresponsible" and anybody who knows him would not expect that reaction.  And anyone who doesn't know him likewise would have no reason to expect that reaction.  I think the letter is purposefully provocative but to what end- I'm not sure.  That's where all the speculation comes in.

Quote

Yeah so he wrote the letter to Jon.  He is asking for his wife and his POW, Theon Greyjoy.  Perfectly understandable and he would have no reason to expect non-cooperation from the Watch.  What idiot would trade the safety of the Nightswatch for one girl and one man?  A big idiot indeed.  

It's not just one girl and one man though.  It's two innocent children (one a baby) as well.  And then you factor in that Jon does not actually have the hostages demanded by the apparent maniac threatening to do all sorts of horrible things...there is no set reaction here that makes perfect sense.  Jon can't deliver on Ramsay's demands, and Ramsay is not so dumb as to think that threatening to skin people and then demanding innocent children from Jon would actually result in Jon handing them over.  Ramsay (or whoever wrote the letter) has every reason to expect non-cooperation here.

21 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

"Granite does not burn easily," Stannis said. "The castle can be rebuilt, in time. It's not the walls that make a lord, it's the man. Your northmen do not know me, have no reason to love me, yet I will need their strength in the battles yet to come. I need a son of Eddard Stark to win them to my banner."

He could go with another northern lord, and he may have to go with one considering what happened. But there is no doubt that restoring the Starks to their rightful place would be the preferable option. You might not think he needs Jon but Stannis has been clear on several occasions about his thoughts on the matter.

Without a son of Winterfell to stand beside me, I can only hope to win the north by battle.

Stannis came north knowing he would have to battle the Boltons sooner or later. They are loyal to the Lannister's after all. When Stannis says the quoted line, by win the north he means the other lords, as battle with the Boltons is inevitable. Even having Jon by his side will not prevent that.

I'd emphasize the quote that "I can only hope to win the north by battle" as meaning to defeat the Boltons.  I get your point, but Jon is not necessary  once the Boltons are dead.  I think the preferable option for Stannis is whoever will be most loyal to him- a Stark would be nice but it's a luxury, one that he doesn't need.  That being the case, I don't really see his motivation for writing the PL.  It's kind of a big deal, and as has been stated by @divicamanipulating Jon by writing it is risky.  If stannis really wants Jon at Winterfell, he could just return to the Wall or send for Jon after he takes Winterfell and offer it to him again.

Quote

As for Jon's value in the war against the Others. As Warden of the North he would be strongly placed to help on that front, just as Eddard once thought he would have to call his banners to deal with the King-beyond-the-Wall. Being Lord of Winterfell would not exclude him from going to Castle Black or the Wall. He would lose command of the Watch but gain command of the North, which is much stronger.

I agree with this- I think this is part of Jon's journey in ADWD as well where he begins to question the utility of sticking to one's vows in light of the purpose of the NW.  I do think he can better protect the realm as a Northern leader rather than at the Wall.

19 hours ago, divica said:

Do you guys really think stannis or an ally could have written the letter?

Do you guys think that when jon reaches winterfell and learns that he was lied he would simply do what they want? That jon wouldn t still be an oathbreaker if he becomes warden? 

from an ally point of view the letter doesn t make sense. It doesn t accomplish anything because nobody knows about the wildling army ( they arrived at the Wall very recently) and jon wouldn t march to winterfell with his brothers… basically without the wildlings there is nothing jon can do...

 

If on the other hand it is written by a Bolton then it is a brillant move. Jon Reading that letter to his brothers almost garantes a mutiny. Without the wildling army how could the watch respond to the letter? either jon complies (and no son of ned stark would comply) or it garantes a mutiny and makes the watch an ally to the boltons because the night watchers don t want to die in order to protect stannis familly, wildlings and mel. 

I agree with your point on from an ally's perspective, the PL doesn't make a ton of sense.  But I don't think from the Bolton's perspective it's brilliant or makes a ton of sense either.  Jon reading the letter out loud to his brothers is not remotely guaranteed, nor would I say is that even a likely outcome.  Likewise a "mutiny" is not a particularly likely outcome either, considering that besides from Bowen Marsh and a select few conspirators we have no idea what the general reaction is to the PL.  In short, there is no way for the author of the PL to know how Jon will react to this letter, nor is there any way to know how the rest of the NW and the people at the Wall will respond.

Do I still think Ramsay is the most likely author?  Probably.  In light of the letter not making a ton of sense, Ramsay fits as a psycopath who found and tortured a spearwife, found out about the plot, and is now furious with Jon for depriving Ramsay of his favorite torture subjects.  The PL can thus be viewed not as any kind of strategic play, but just Ramsay being Ramsay and not being able to control his anger.

Having said that, as I have written elsewhere, certain phrases and the inclusion of Val and Monster indicate Mance as being involved.  If Ramsay has Mance, I don't see real need for Val and Monster.  If he truly wants the pitiful wildling force that he thinks is at the Wall of the remaining dregs of Mance's smashed army (again I agree that nobody knows about Tormund) he has Mance- Val and Monster are not very helpful.    Mance on the other hand would 100% want his son and Val back as they are being used by Stannis to control him.

Again though, it's so tough to ascribe motivations to the letter pertaining to the hostages requested because I don't think the author of the PL could ever reasonably expect those hostages to be delivered by Jon.  So I'm left looking at phrases like "for all the North/World to see" and "black crows" as some kind of code.

19 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

Val, (who is Dalla's sister by blood or otherwise), and Mance's son do have value to Stannis. The child is his hold over Mance and Mance is the only man who can bind the Wildlings to his cause. As Mel said to Jon, Mance will not betray you as we hold his son.

I think Stannis planned to marry Val to Jon to further help incorporate the Wildlings into his realm, as he saw it. Of course Stannis wrongly sees her as a wildling princess, as he even says in the letter, and while she is not as valuable as that, I still think if Stannis got his way and married her to the Lord of Winterfell there would be some value in the Wildlings seeing one of their own married into a high house.

I will totally accept this as the reason those people are named in the letter. The people demanded are people Jon would never hand over to someone like Ramsay, and therefor leaves him no choice but to not comply with the demands. That sounds very reasonable to me. But this line of reasoning stands for whoever wrote the letter. So I will agree that it is why Stannis included them in the letter.

My issue continues to be that if Stannis wins this battle at Winterfell, there is no need for trickery from him.  Stannis at his own leisure can go back to the Wall or send for these hostages himself if he really wants them.  There is little to no reason why Stannis would want Monster and Val in Winterfell and not at the Wall- they are just as useful as hostages over Mance at the Wall as they are at Winterfell.  

The bolded is the key issue I keep coming back to- there is no way the author could ever expect Jon to comply with the demands.  And similarly I think there is no way for the author to predict any particular outcome arising out of sending the letter.  

 

[three-eyed monkey]

1 hour ago, Tagganaro said:

My issue continues to be that if Stannis wins this battle at Winterfell, there is no need for trickery from him.  Stannis at his own leisure can go back to the Wall or send for these hostages himself if he really wants them.  There is little to no reason why Stannis would want Monster and Val in Winterfell and not at the Wall- they are just as useful as hostages over Mance at the Wall as they are at Winterfell.  

The bolded is the key issue I keep coming back to- there is no way the author could ever expect Jon to comply with the demands.  And similarly I think there is no way for the author to predict any particular outcome arising out of sending the letter.  

Stannis does not need the hostages. He most likely will send for whoever he needs once he has won the northern lords to his cause. Stannis only purpose in sending the letter is to get Jon to break his vows because from Stannis point of view Jon's vows are what are preventing Jon from accepting Stannis' offer, a conflict that has been set up in the text more than once, beginning in ASoS and continuing through ADwD.

I don't think any author of the letter could predict in detail what would happen, and I certainly don't think any author could have predicted or planned for it to turn out as it did. But if we examine what choices Jon had when he received the letter, purely from a logic point of view, we shall see that they are few.

1/ Jon can comply with Ramsay's letter, or 2/ Jon can defy Ramsay's letter.

Option 1 is straight forward. Jon sends Shireen and company to Ramsay and hopes that's the end of it.

Option 2 is more complicated and includes any action that does not include sending Shireen and company to Ramsay. He can send those mentioned to Essos. he can ignore the letter, he can take whatever actions you like, but I doesn't matter, they all amount to defiance.

I think Stannis has seen enough of Jon to guess with a good deal of certainty that Jon will not choose option 1.

If Jon decides on option 2, then the question is, how will Jon defy Ramsay? Again we have a simple choice to make.

A/ Jon goes to confront Ramsay, or B/ Jon waits for Ramsay to come to him.

Stannis wants Jon to choose option A, obviously, as that means breaking his vows. The letter gives Jon reasons to pick option A, be it to make Ramsay answer for his words or to attempt the rescue of Mance. And the letter removes two significant barriers to Jon choosing this option. Firstly it tells Jon that Stannis is dead, therefore there is no chance he will intervene and solve the problem of Ramsay for Jon. Secondly, the letter informs Jon that Arya is no longer a hostage of the Boltons.

I think anyone who knows Jon even a little would bet on him picking option A. That's what this letter is for Stannis, a gamble, one last roll of the dice to bag his first pick as a loyal Lord of Winterfell, but it's a free roll because even if Jon picks option B then Stannis is still in the same position he was in before he sent the letter.

[The Mother of The Others]

5 hours ago, lalt said:

Why given his far more serius problems, Ramsey should care about all those people.... for real (beside his wife)?  Why to provoke the FF, if he is in the position to not fight anymore and winter is really coming? Why... if he really lost tracks of fArya and Theon, wasting any time going back to Winterfell instead of going into huntig her/them directly, after the battle? Why if is not scared of harming the NW... he just doesn't show up there? Why, in other words, to give up his best weapon: the surprise effect? 

Picture Ramsay:  #1 personal trait: control over other people, bodily.  He's lost two of his people.  So , halfway unhinged, he demands more than 2 hostages from the opponent, or he'll go completely unhinged.   Next ? from above: if winter is here, better to provoke the opponent into traveling  (ruining themselves in route) than you having to leave 'home'.  And to accomplish this?  Put a powerful sense of urgency upon them via the letter.   Next:  I don't know why Ramsay didn't apply his tracking skills.  He's refocussed on ruling?   His jungle survival soul telling him priority one is to keep close watch over his volatile inmates at winterfell?   Or maybe he DID strike out after them as we'd expect, but when northmen picked up theon & jeyne they knew to confuse Ramsay with false tracks leading off toward the Wall? 

 Next ?:  Rams can't show up at the wall, or doesn't want to, cuz winter and cuz afraid to leave winterfell unattended (incendiary situation, tenuous hold on power, all that).  And surprise is already out of the bag, he fears.  He's lost control of theon & jeyne.  So the Ramsay response is to lash out and get ahead of the problem.  Get the wall afraid, first step toward control over it.  If he sends a letter not mentioning his missing wife and reek, that makes him look even sillier and weaker, even less in control if jon can call him an ignorant fool.  So he hits jon with an information overload to show how IN control he still is.   Unhinged, yes, but holding most of the cards. 

And he absolutely knows that the letter will get Jon in trouble.  Maybe not specifically stabbed to death.  But Ramsay is confident he's likely gotten jon removed or embattled as lord commander just by sending the letter, now that jon's illegal acts are public knowledge.  So yes it was better, swifter, more elegant than sending an assassin.   Ramsay's hands actually stay cleaner this way, letting the watch clean up their own mess.   Jon was already constrained by his vows, like a man napping inside an iron maiden, and the letter rattles that iron maiden, sorely tempting jon to lurch into movement and impale himself on the spikes of his own treacherous situation.  The letter was a death sentence all by itself, at least career wise.  (Which Jon knows, hence he went unhinged).  So either Ramsay really is a natural savant at this stuff, or yeah, maybe Roose as the author is beginning to cut himself free of Ramsay, since Ramsay's hold on power through Arya has slipped away and Rams is maybe a liability to Roose more than before.

Lastly, in answer to why the demanded people would be turned over after Jon's ousting and Stannis' death: because.  They just would.  The watch would be glad to divest themselves of those people, remnants of jon's misdeeds, and get on the lord of winterfell's good side.

[dialt]

13 hours ago, The Mother of The Others said:

Picture Ramsay:  #1 personal trait: control over other people, bodily.  He's lost two of his people.  So , halfway unhinged, he demands more than 2 hostages from the opponent, or he'll go completely unhinged.   Next ? from above: if winter is here, better to provoke the opponent into traveling  (ruining themselves in route) than you having to leave 'home'.  And to accomplish this?  Put a powerful sense of urgency upon them via the letter.   Next:  I don't know why Ramsay didn't apply his tracking skills.  He's refocussed on ruling?   His jungle survival soul telling him priority one is to keep close watch over his volatile inmates at winterfell?   Or maybe he DID strike out after them as we'd expect, but when northmen picked up theon & jeyne they knew to confuse Ramsay with false tracks leading off toward the Wall? 

 Next ?:  Rams can't show up at the wall, or doesn't want to, cuz winter and cuz afraid to leave winterfell unattended (incendiary situation, tenuous hold on power, all that).  And surprise is already out of the bag, he fears.  He's lost control of theon & jeyne.  So the Ramsay response is to lash out and get ahead of the problem.  Get the wall afraid, first step toward control over it.  If he sends a letter not mentioning his missing wife and reek, that makes him look even sillier and weaker, even less in control if jon can call him an ignorant fool.  So he hits jon with an information overload to show how IN control he still is.   Unhinged, yes, but holding most of the cards. 

And he absolutely knows that the letter will get Jon in trouble.  Maybe not specifically stabbed to death.  But Ramsay is confident he's likely gotten jon removed or embattled as lord commander just by sending the letter, now that jon's illegal acts are public knowledge.  So yes it was better, swifter, more elegant than sending an assassin.   Ramsay's hands actually stay cleaner this way, letting the watch clean up their own mess.   Jon was already constrained by his vows, like a man napping inside an iron maiden, and the letter rattles that iron maiden, sorely tempting jon to lurch into movement and impale himself on the spikes of his own treacherous situation.  The letter was a death sentence all by itself, at least career wise.  (Which Jon knows, hence he went unhinged).  So either Ramsay really is a natural savant at this stuff, or yeah, maybe Roose as the author is beginning to cut himself free of Ramsay, since Ramsay's hold on power through Arya has slipped away and Rams is maybe a liability to Roose more than before.

Lastly, in answer to why the demanded people would be turned over after Jon's ousting and Stannis' death: because.  They just would.  The watch would be glad to divest themselves of those people, remnants of jon's misdeeds, and get on the lord of winterfell's good side.

I believe there's a general consensum on Ramsey's personality.
What we disagree on - or we value differently - is another thing and everything else comes down from it.

Fom my pov, in fact, in this particular case we should focus mainly on Ramsey's... priorities not on his personality. 
That not because his way of thinking/acting is irrelevant, but because the circumstances are "exceptional".

So, sure: he's someone who seeks control over "his" people. I do not deny that.
But beside that, on in addition to that... loosing tracks of fArya and the chance only that she may end up meeting Jon it's - I believe - a huge problem for the Boltons.
Something that they cannot take into account. A risk that they must avoid (and Theon+Jon may only add wather to that well).

I value this detail above everything else, because I think the Boltons cannot do otherwise.  And if Ramsey is not clever enough to see that... Roose is. He certainly is. 

So when I say "why should he care about all the rest of those people" that is not to say that they are pointless per se (we may debate endlessly about that). I say it to unrdeline that - given the circumstances - his priority must still be another one, more concrete and urgent (timing is a key factor as well in that context) than seeking vengeance or appeasing his thirst of control and blood.

Just because of that and just because I do also think - to quote someone else -

19 hours ago, Tagganaro said:

It's not just one girl and one man though.  It's two innocent children (one a baby) as well.  And then you factor in that Jon does not actually have the hostages demanded by the apparent maniac threatening to do all sorts of horrible things...there is no set reaction here that makes perfect sense.  Jon can't deliver on Ramsay's demands, and Ramsay is not so dumb as to think that threatening to skin people and then demanding innocent children from Jon would actually result in Jon handing them over.  Ramsay (or whoever wrote the letter) has every reason to expect non-cooperation here.

that one thing holds/explains the other. The Boltons need to kill Jon before he can possible meet fArya.
So they provoke him not because tehy are 100% sure he'll react the way he actually does, but because that is still their best chance. A bet, if you will. But the best one.

They have to try, at least. 

And just because as far as they know Jon has never left the Wall for his "family" (he didn't do that personally not even to freed Arya) they need to raise the bar... a lot.

Like I said in the OP, I believe if Ramsey/Roose is the author the PL is a desperate move, but also the cleverest they/he may have done.

So much so, that to me, Ramsey/Roose as author makes perfect sense not only because they have the motive and the opportunty, but because all of the flaws in this kind of scenario may be easely overcome.

Still I really think we cannot exclude other people and I better like to discuss them just because motive and opportunity are less clear (to me, at least) and just because (I admit it) I "feel" - but that's a feeling - that the author (or one of them) has a personal history with Jon.

So... to test/confess something else or to go in a total tinfoil mood

I'll go with Roose + Mance (because, are we realy sure that Roose doesn't want to get rid of Jon and his son too? and are we really sure that mance doesn't seek any kind of revange vs both Jon and Stannis? Why in hell Roose gave Manderly excactly what he wanted, what the day before scared roose so much? Who killed Little Frey? Why GRRM did tell us - via Roose - that the bastard's boys are in reality his boys?). But that should probably be argument of another absolutelly tinfoil post, just to have fun.