Jump to content
Marcelowww

Jon Snow's death

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

The NW is not a subject of the throne. They are a neutral entity. Sure, the throne could paper up whatever they like, but that doesn’t make it right it legal, etc. 

 

Gosh, that's the same line of logic Jon used in his "paper shield" and he didn't think it held a whole lot of value either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Trefayne said:

 

I would tend to agree with this, but a letter from the IT, ostensibly from Pycelle and Swyft, would give Marsh and his cohorts the "paper shield" they need to survive assassinating their LC and thematically turn that little trick Jon tried right on its head.

I agree Marsh is depending on a paper shield from the Iron Throne and as we have seen in the past that never ends well.

I'm not saying pressure from King's Landing is the only thing driving Marsh, but it does explain why he had to act decisively when Jon announced he was riding against the Lord of Winterfell and essentially the crown. It's not that Jon was breaking his vows, sure that is punishable by death in it's own right, but that's Jon's head. Marsh is more concerned about his own head. If he doesn't act to stop Jon riding against Ramsay, then he risks been seen as being complicit.

5 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

The NW is not a subject of the throne. They are a neutral entity. Sure, the throne could paper up whatever they like, but that doesn’t make it right it legal, etc. 

This is true but different characters interpret this in a variety of ways. What's important here is what Bowen Marsh thinks.

"Lord Stannis helped us when we needed help," Marsh said doggedly, "but he is still a rebel, and his cause is doomed. As doomed as we'll be if the Iron Throne marks us down as traitors. We must be certain that we do not choose the losing side."

Given that Marsh and conspirators probably read the pink letter before it was delivered to Jon and would have taken the content as true, leading them to believe that Stannis was defeated, then he would have been in no doubt as to which side was the losing side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

I’ll make mine your words: bingo! :D

 

of course he is not dead, it is known that he is living his second life in Alys Karstark, "Winter's lady" with her frosty crown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Trefayne said:

 

I would tend to agree with this, but a letter from the IT, ostensibly from Pycelle and Swyft, would give Marsh and his cohorts the "paper shield" they need to survive assassinating their LC

But it wouldn’t. It wouldn’t make any difference whatsoever imo. Because Marsh’s life (and that of his cohorts) are in the FF’s hands. The Free Folk’s and the crows loyal to Jon. These two groups combined vastly outnumber the “Marshist” and/or anti-Jon faction. 

31 minutes ago, Trefayne said:

and thematically turn that little trick Jon tried right on its head.

What do you mean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, kissdbyfire said:

But it wouldn’t. It wouldn’t make any difference whatsoever imo. Because Marsh’s life (and that of his cohorts) are in the FF’s hands. The Free Folk’s and the crows loyal to Jon. These two groups combined vastly outnumber the “Marshist” and/or anti-Jon faction. 

What do you mean?

 

I didn't say Marsh was thinking clearly on this subject. I'm just saying I always wondered made the conspirators think that they could survive the assassination of their leader. Jon's obvious actions, along with some reinforcement from the "legitimate" crown could make a good argument for them, especially if they felt backed into a corner by then.

Jon tried to use a "paper shield" to keep the NW out of trouble with the IT, noting their neutrality, after Stannis showed up, but he really didn't think it would work. He even notes how Tywin would probably declare them traitors anyway for helping Stannis at all. I find it more than a little ironic that the IT might do the same thing to justify their wanting Jon removed by using a "paper shield" to give the conspirators a good reason to believe that they would be protected by the IT from retaliation (ostensibly by manipulating the vote for a new LC like they tried to do previously).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Trefayne said:

 

I didn't say Marsh was thinking clearly on this subject. I'm just saying I always wondered made the conspirators think that they could survive the assassination of their leader. Jon's obvious actions, along with some reinforcement from the "legitimate" crown could make a good argument for them, especially if they felt backed into a corner by then.

Yup, I agree.

Marsh is a bean-counter, and has a bean-counter’s mindset and ability to think outside the box. 

1 minute ago, Trefayne said:

Jon tried to use a "paper shield" to keep the NW out of trouble with the IT, noting their neutrality, after Stannis showed up, but he really didn't think it would work. He even notes how Tywin would probably declare them traitors anyway for helping Stannis at all. I find it more than a little ironic that the IT might do the same thing to justify their wanting Jon removed by using a "paper shield" to give the conspirators a good reason to believe that they would be protected by the IT from retaliation (ostensibly by manipulating the vote for a new LC like they tried to do previously).

Gotcha. I wasn’t sure what you were referring to before. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Marcelowww said:

So what's the true reason for the bastard's murder?

If it was because he was marching to fight the Boltons (breaking his oath), why didnt Bowen Marsh and the black brothers captured him and send him to Winterfell to be decapitaded by the Warden of The North (Roose Bolton), like every oath-breaker?

Or it was because he let the wildlings into the Wall?

The "for the Watch" thing makes me believe that it was for the last reason.

Because Cercei wanted him dead . 

Share this post


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

 

I didn't say Marsh was thinking clearly on this subject. I'm just saying I always wondered made the conspirators think that they could survive the assassination of their leader. Jon's obvious actions, along with some reinforcement from the "legitimate" crown could make a good argument for them, especially if they felt backed into a corner by then.

Jon tried to use a "paper shield" to keep the NW out of trouble with the IT, noting their neutrality, after Stannis showed up, but he really didn't think it would work. He even notes how Tywin would probably declare them traitors anyway for helping Stannis at all. I find it more than a little ironic that the IT might do the same thing to justify their wanting Jon removed by using a "paper shield" to give the conspirators a good reason to believe that they would be protected by the IT from retaliation (ostensibly by manipulating the vote for a new LC like they tried to do previously).

I’ll have to respond more in the morning (it’s rather late here), but the two paper shields aren’t the same. One is to save the Nights Watch, the other is to give “pass” to an assaination because of playing politics (and endangering all of Westeros). This goes in with something GRRM describes at some Con about two or three years ago. It plays in to the bigger layer of corruption of the Iron Throne. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Fattest Leech said:

I’ll have to respond more in the morning (it’s rather late here), but the two paper shields aren’t the same. One is to save the Nights Watch, the other is to give “pass” to an assaination because of playing politics (and endangering all of Westeros). This goes in with something GRRM describes at some Con about two or three years ago. It plays in to the bigger layer of corruption of the Iron Throne. 

 

I await your response, but to add more fuel to the discussion:

Both "paper shields" (assuming the second one even exists) are being used to "save the Watch". Both "shields" have been handed to, or had foisted upon them if you prefer, pawns (Jon and Marsh et al) by higher powers wanting to corrupt the central pillar of the NW, neutrality.

Jon feels obligated to write his "shield" since Stannis has imposed himself on the Watch and Jon feels obliged to accept since Stannis just saved their bacon. But, Stannis also wants Jon and the Watch to yield to his authority as rightful king and Jon can't do that. He claims neutrality to the IT and tries to keep Stannis at arms length as well as he can with an army camped in his living room in a vain effort to ride the fence. Tywin's death disrupts the IT for a time, but the resulting demand to remove Jon probably would have been the same if Tywin was still in charge, it just might have happened sooner.

If Marsh and Co. did receive a letter from the IT telling them that the traitor Snow must be removed or they (and the Watch) would be considered traitors also because it would show that they are obviously not neutral by apparently siding with Stannis, they are basically pushing a "paper shield" into the conspirator's hands by doing the same thing that Stannis is doing; saying that the only way for the Watch to remain "neutral" is for them to take sides. Jon's actions and attitudes may have spurred them on, but it is possible that a "paper shield" gave the conspirators the final piece they needed to decide to act with perceived impunity when they saw their opportunity. If some theories are true, they may have even concocted the Pink Letter to create their opportunity before the IT got around to dealing with them (slim, I know).

This all goes into the corruption of the IT, the corruption of Stannis' perceived purpose, the corruption of the NW and its vows; maybe why the Others are stirring now, sensing an exploitable weakness, if your theories about how important the vows are/were hold any salt. The corruption of vows and purpose seem to be repeating themes in ASoIaF.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/28/2018 at 6:45 PM, Marcelowww said:

So what's the true reason for the bastard's murder?

If it was because he was marching to fight the Boltons (breaking his oath), why didnt Bowen Marsh and the black brothers captured him and send him to Winterfell to be decapitaded by the Warden of The North (Roose Bolton), like every oath-breaker?

Or it was because he let the wildlings into the Wall?

The "for the Watch" thing makes me believe that it was for the last reason.

Jon lost his reason over Arya.  He was willing to cause problems for the watch in order to get his sister out of her marriage to Ramsay Bolton.  Jon did a lot of illegal things as well as acting very partial in passing judgment.  He put the interest of his sister ahead of the best interest of the watch.  Which is really saying he place Arya's interest ahead of protecting the kingdom against the white walkers.  Jon had to be removed.  Bowen did the right thing.  Jon was about to take the Wildlings to attack House Bolton.  It's not something a sworn brother of the watch should ever do.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Bowen 747 said:

Jon lost his reason over Arya.  He was willing to cause problems for the watch in order to get his sister out of her marriage to Ramsay Bolton. 

Nope, he didn’t. “Arya”’s situation, being married to a known psycho definitely added fuel to it, but Jon is very clear, he’s going after Ramsay because of the threats Ramsay has made against the NW and Jon personally. And there’s no room to question this, since we have his own thoughts on it. 

7 hours ago, Bowen 747 said:

Jon did a lot of illegal things as well as acting very partial in passing judgment. 

Did he? What illegal things did he do, and when did he act partial when passing judgement? 

7 hours ago, Bowen 747 said:

He put the interest of his sister ahead of the best interest of the watch. 

 

It gets very old very fast, but Jon is one of few characters who has the best interest of humanity and the NW at heart. 

7 hours ago, Bowen 747 said:

Which is really saying he place Arya's interest ahead of protecting the kingdom against the white walkers. 

:lol:

Are you serious? 

7 hours ago, Bowen 747 said:

Jon had to be removed. 

Only he wasn’t. And anyone paying attention will know that the whole experience will only make him stronger. Yeah, I get it... you don’t like Jon, and fair enough. But to dismiss the text and the author just because your bias is too strong won’t get you anywhere. 

7 hours ago, Bowen 747 said:

Bowen did the right thing. 

Here we can agree.

A really, really stupid move from the bean-counter is one of very few ways to create a scenario where the FF and the crows loyal to Jon take over the NW w/o making them be the bad guys. This way, the bloodbath that ensues in the aftermath of the assassination attempt on Jon’s life will be deserved, justified, and the cause of much celebration. I have the fizzy in the freezer, and am totally ready to pop it open. :D

 

7 hours ago, Bowen 747 said:

Jon was about to take the Wildlings to attack House Bolton.  It's not something a sworn brother of the watch should ever do.  

I will end by again quoting the same poster I’ve been quoting a lot lately:

try re-reading the books, it’s all there, plain as day.

:cheers: @Dorian Martell's son

If re-reading the books isn’t enough to convince you, try reading some of Martin’s interviews. :)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jon was killed to stop him from leading the savages to war against the Boltons.  It's really bad for a lord commander to attack the very people he has sworn to protect.  Bowen didn't kill Jon to punish him.  It was done to prevent Jon from escalating his feud with the Boltons into war.  Both are bad for the realm.  Jon is an oathbreaker who pardoned the worst criminal in Watch history and sent that man to take his sister so he could hide her from the Boltons.  Those were the reasons why Jon was killed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/29/2018 at 7:04 AM, three-eyed monkey said:

Exactly. Here are the quotes.

Small Council meeting, Cersei IV, AFfC:

"Snow shares Lord Eddard's taste for treason too," she said. "The father would have handed the realm to Stannis. The son has given him lands and castles."

"The Night's Watch is sworn to take no part in the wars of the Seven Kingdoms," Pycelle reminded them. "For thousands of years the black brothers have upheld that tradition."

"Until now," said Cersei. "The bastard boy has written us to avow that the Night's Watch takes no side, but his actions give the lie to his words. He has given Stannis food and shelter, yet has the insolence to plead with us for arms and men."

"An outrage," declared Lord Merryweather. "We cannot allow the Night's Watch to join its strength to that of Lord Stannis."

"We must declare this Snow a traitor and a rebel," agreed Ser Harys Swyft. "The black brothers must remove him."

Grand Maester Pycelle nodded ponderously. "I propose that we inform Castle Black that no more men will be sent to them until such time as Snow is gone."

Thanks for this.

It has been my opinion Marsh was not the brains behind the attack on LC Snow. I thought the attack had something to do with Thorne.

The material you provided has given me something to ponder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Clegane'sPup said:

Thanks for this.

It has been my opinion Marsh was not the brains behind the attack on LC Snow. I thought the attack had something to do with Thorne.

The material you provided has given me something to ponder.

I agree that Thorne is involved. He was always going to re-enter the story sooner or later with a vendetta towards Jon, so it makes sense he was involved in a plot to kill Jon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless if you think what Jon did was right or wrong, I think most of us here would have done the same if we where in Jon's position.

I mean if you had an eleven-year-old sister that was being raped and brutalized by a psychotic nutcase, could you honestly say you would do nothing? If you did do nothing in that situation and did not care, I honestly think you would be a terrible person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Eddard Waters said:

Regardless if you think what Jon did was right or wrong, I think most of us here would have done the same if we where in Jon's position.

I mean if you had an eleven-year-old sister that was being raped and brutalized by a psychotic nutcase, could you honestly say you would do nothing? If you did do nothing in that situation and did not care, I honestly think you would be a terrible person.

Most of us are not brothers of the night's watch with an important job to do.  A sheep farmer can prioritize like an idiot and pick the welfare of one girl over the safety of a whole continent.  A brother of the night's watch should not.  And I disagree with you.  There are many men and women in the armed services of their country who choose to act responsibly.  Jon was wrong to do what he did.  No excuse.  Bowen Marsh was right to execute him.

Edited by James Fenimore Cooper XXII

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/30/2018 at 1:44 PM, kissdbyfire said:

I will end by again quoting the same poster I’ve been quoting a lot lately:

try re-reading the books, it’s all there, plain as day.

:cheers: @Dorian Martell's son

If re-reading the books isn’t enough to convince you, try reading some of Martin’s interviews. :)

Lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/30/2018 at 6:44 PM, kissdbyfire said:

Jon is very clear, he’s going after Ramsay because of the threats Ramsay has made against the NW and Jon personally. And there’s no room to question this, since we have his own thoughts on it. 

 

On 12/30/2018 at 6:44 PM, kissdbyfire said:

Did he? What illegal things did he do, and when did he act partial when passing judgement?

Isn't the reason Ramsay threatened the NW that Jon sent Mance to take Arya away from him? Jon is a good person and his actions are understandable, but between trying to steal the wife of the warden of the north and marching to defeat him when he gets caught, letting go through the wall the people they're supposed to keep away from the wall, and actively helping Stannis, it's also understandable to think he's a traitor and that he has personal interests that he considers more important than the NW. Jon himself thinks that going after Ramsay means breaking his vows:

Quote

"The Night's Watch takes no part in the wars of the Seven Kingdoms," Jon reminded them when some semblance of quiet had returned. "It is not for us to oppose the Bastard of Bolton, to avenge Stannis Baratheon, to defend his widow and his daughter. This creature who makes cloaks from the skins of women has sworn to cut my heart out, and I mean to make him answer for those words … but I will not ask my brothers to forswear their vows.

Quote

Yarwyck and Marsh were slipping out, he saw, and all their men behind them. It made no matter. He did not need them now. He did not want them. No man can ever say I made my brothers break their vows. If this is oathbreaking, the crime is mine and mine alone.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×