Jump to content
Marcelowww

Jon Snow's death

Recommended Posts

On 12/31/2018 at 4:19 PM, Clegane'sPup said:

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."

How can the Counsel inform Castle Black without Jon knowing?  Who would/ could they contact and how?

That had nothing to do with Jon's murder.  The officers did not like the decisions Jon was making because they conflicted with centuries of customs and an oath which did not take into account a very unusual set of circumstances.  

On 12/31/2018 at 4:19 PM, Clegane'sPup said:

"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."

One could argue that the Watch had not taken part in the War.  They sent for help and Stannis came and saved them, they were in no position to refuse Stannis hospitality after that. Then Stannis offered to help them guard the wall by manning the abandoned castles, again, how could they refuse.  The throne sends a few dozen men at a time from the dungeons, stannis had a well trained well armed army who were there.  Would you refuse that help for future promises? 

Even if Jon marched on Winterfell, he was not doing it to help Stannis, he was doing it, in part, because Ramsey was threatening him and the Watch. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Chris Mormont said:

How can the Counsel inform Castle Black without Jon knowing?  Who would/ could they contact and how?

I liked the information @three-eyed monkey gave. It was from FfC. Supposedly FfC and DwD are running concurrently.

To try to answer your question as to how LC Snow could be unaware of a raven flapping from K and landing at CB.  I take into consideration that Clydas, the person in charge of the ravens at CB, is not a maester. I'm thinking Clydas is a steward.

Depending upon Clydas' loyalties Clydas may have informed Marsh of the letter from KL.  It's a stretch but it seems to me if one letter can be tampered with --- as in the pink/bastard letter smear of pink wax --- why not another.

33 minutes ago, Chris Mormont said:

That had nothing to do with Jon's murder.  The officers did not like the decisions Jon was making because they conflicted with centuries of customs and an oath which did not take into account a very unusual set of circumstances.  

It could though, if certain members of the NW are already disgruntled about the LC's decisions. I'm fairly certain that I am not articulating very well.

37 minutes ago, Chris Mormont said:

One could argue that the Watch had not taken part in the War.  They sent for help and Stannis came and saved them, they were in no position to refuse Stannis hospitality after that. Then Stannis offered to help them guard the wall by manning the abandoned castles, again, how could they refuse.  The throne sends a few dozen men at a time from the dungeons, stannis had a well trained well armed army who were there.  Would you refuse that help for future promises? 

One could argue/debate/flap jaws about many things. Yet, taking the quote in its entirety for me it gave me something to think about. I find it difficult to flip back and forth between thread pages. The poster supplied the info on page one. I commented on page two. This is page three. Stuff gets lost in translation. Belowis the information that I responded to:

A Feast for Crows - Cersei IV       "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."/

When the poster supplied the information I had an aha moment because it has long been my opine that Marsh is not the brains behind the attempted assassination of Jon Snow. Marsh may very well believe he is taking the correct action to keep favor with the ruler of the Iron Throne.

Except this reader is under the impression that Stannis, Jon and the wildlings know who the enemy is. I inserted the [...] .


A Dance with Dragons - Jon XII     Tormund turned back. "You know nothing. You killed a dead man, aye, I heard. Mance killed a hundred. A man can fight the dead [wights], but when their masters [Others] come, when the white mists rise up … how do you fight a mist, crow? Shadows with teeth … air so cold it hurts to breathe, like a knife inside your chest … you do not know, you cannot know … can your sword cut cold?"/

1 hour ago, Chris Mormont said:

Even if Jon marched on Winterfell, he was not doing it to help Stannis, he was doing it, in part, because Ramsey was threatening him and the Watch. 

As far as I know I agree that Jon was going to ride to WF with the wildlings in tow. Yes, the pink/bastard letter had direct threats and multiple demands.

Anyway to make a long winded post short I merely thanked a poster for supplying information to ponder. :cool4:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, elipride said:

Isn't the reason Ramsay threatened the NW that Jon sent Mance to take Arya away from him?

Nope. Jon sent Mance to find a grey girl on a dying horse fleeing from her marriage. He hoped this girl would be Arya, but he never sent Mance to Winterfell. 

Quote

Jon is a good person and his actions are understandable, but between trying to steal the wife of the warden of the north

As I said, this is inaccurate. As far as Jon knew, there was a girl fleeing from a marriage. Mel said it was Arya, Jon hoped it would be Arya. But regardless of who the girl was, the mission was to rescue a girl who had already fled. Also, Ramsay is not the WotN. 

Quote

and marching to defeat him when he gets caught,

When and how did he get caught? And doing what? Arya/fArya isn’t at CB. Ramsay writes to Jon making a number of demands and threats. Jon tells everyone he is going to make Ramsay answer for the threats. And just so it’s perfectly clear to the reader, Martin gives us Jon’s thoughts on this. 

ADwD, Jon XIII

Horse and Rory fell in beside Jon as he left the Shieldhall. I should talk with Melisandre after I see the queen, he thought. If she could see a raven in a storm, she can find Ramsay Snow for me. Then he heard the shouting … and a roar so loud it seemed to shake the Wall.

 

Quote

letting go through the wall the people they're supposed to keep away from the wall, 

The NW does not exist to prevent the FF from crossing. The crows have forgot their purpose, same as the readers, and that’s why the NW is in trouble: they’re no longer true. 

Quote

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:

Stannis came to aid the NW when no one else did. Fuck the rule book, it’s crunch time. And people need common sense and to make decisions based on the greater good. As I said earlier, Jon is one of few characters who has the greater good at heart. 

Edited by kissdbyfire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, elipride said:

 

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:

 

Indeed, that is the reason Ramsay threatened the NW.  It was Jon's fault.  Jon made it his business to take Arya away from Ramsay.  Which is a violation of NW vows.  That is interference in things he had no business in.   What Jon did is actually a lot worse than what his apologists are claiming.  He let his personal bias affect his judgment.  He carried out his revenge when he killed Janos Slynt for a comparably trivial offense while later forgiving Mance Rayder for his.  Remember, Mance Rayder is still a sworn brother of the NW.  It was treason for Jon to order him to carry out an illegal mission.  Mance also broke guest rights when he murdered Roose Bolton's servants.  To top that off, Jon was planning to lead the wildlings out of Castle Black to attack Roose Bolton.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Chris Mormont said:

How can the Counsel inform Castle Black without Jon knowing?  Who would/ could they contact and how?

Bowen Marsh is Castellan at Castle Black and Lord Steward of the Watch. That's who Tywin wrote to, and most probably who Swyft and Pycelle wrote to.

"Lord Tywin favors Slynt," said Bowen Marsh, in a fretful, anxious voice. "I can show you his letter, Othell. 'Our faithful friend and servant,' he called him."

7 hours ago, Chris Mormont said:

That had nothing to do with Jon's murder.  The officers did not like the decisions Jon was making because they conflicted with centuries of customs and an oath which did not take into account a very unusual set of circumstances.  

That is a part of it, but not all of it. Bowen Marsh was concerned about choosing the right side between Tommen and Stannis.

"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."

When Marsh and conspirators read the Pink letter, as was indicated by the smear of pink wax, then it was pretty clear who the losing side was, given that they would have accepted the letter as genuine.

When Jon made it clear he was riding against Ramsay, then the conspirators had to act or risk being seen as complicit in Jon's actions, which would have led to the whole Watch being branded traitors. That's why he said, For the Watch.

7 hours ago, Chris Mormont said:

One could argue that the Watch had not taken part in the War.  They sent for help and Stannis came and saved them, they were in no position to refuse Stannis hospitality after that. Then Stannis offered to help them guard the wall by manning the abandoned castles, again, how could they refuse.  The throne sends a few dozen men at a time from the dungeons, stannis had a well trained well armed army who were there.  Would you refuse that help for future promises? 

One did argue that. That is exactly what Jon argued in his "paper shield" letter to King's Landing, but Cersei nor the small council accepted the argument as Jon's actions gave lie to his words. They wanted Jon removed.

7 hours ago, Chris Mormont said:

Even if Jon marched on Winterfell, he was not doing it to help Stannis, he was doing it, in part, because Ramsey was threatening him and the Watch. 

This bit is correct. Jon believed Stannis to be dead and it is very clear that he was going for Ramsay.

Edited by three-eyed monkey
expanding a point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Here's Looking At You, Kid said:

Indeed, that is the reason Ramsay threatened the NW. 

If indeed it was Ramsay, but that's beside the point.

1 hour ago, Here's Looking At You, Kid said:

It was Jon's fault.  Jon made it his business to take Arya away from Ramsay.  Which is a violation of NW vows.  That is interference in things he had no business in.   What Jon did is actually a lot worse than what his apologists are claiming.  He let his personal bias affect his judgment. 

This is true... to an extent. A huge theme running through the books is keeping vows versus doing the right thing. I'm not an apologist for Jon or Bowen Marsh. I'm simply following the story outlined in the text.

1 hour ago, Here's Looking At You, Kid said:

He carried out his revenge when he killed Janos Slynt for a comparably trivial offense while later forgiving Mance Rayder for his. 

The revenge may have been sweet for Jon but self-preservation was the main motive. Jon feared Slynt and Thorne were plotting against him so he tried to separate the two by sending Slynt to Greyguard. Jon did not set out to kill Slynt, but when Slynt adamantly refused to follow his Lord Commander's orders, Jon seized the opportunity to remove a dangerous opponent.

2 hours ago, Here's Looking At You, Kid said:

Remember, Mance Rayder is still a sworn brother of the NW. 

No, he had forsworn his vows long ago.

2 hours ago, Here's Looking At You, Kid said:

It was treason for Jon to order him to carry out an illegal mission. 

Jon sent him in search of Arya, who he believed was the girl in Mel's vision, who Mel had seen near Long Lake. Jon did not send Mance to Winterfell. Of course, that's not to say he wouldn't have. Jon is very fond of Arya and Ramsay has a nasty reputation, so again, it's about doing what is morally right as opposed to legal. They are two very different things, especially in Westeros.

2 hours ago, Here's Looking At You, Kid said:

Mance also broke guest rights when he murdered Roose Bolton's servants. 

This is a misunderstanding of guest right. Mance was not the host in Winterfell.

 

Share this post


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

Nope. Jon sent Mance to find a grey girl on a dying horse fleeing from her marriage. He hoped this girl would be Arya, but he never sent Mance to Winterfell. 

Jon was putting a lot of faith in Melissandre's prediction of the girl in the dying horse being Arya:

Quote

A grey girl on a dying horse, fleeing from her marriage. On the strength of those words he had loosed Mance Rayder and six spearwives on the north. "Young ones, and pretty," Mance had said. The unburnt king supplied some names, and Dolorous Edd had done the rest, smuggling them from Mole's Town. It seemed like madness now. He might have done better to strike down Mance the moment he revealed himself. Jon had a certain grudging admiration for the late King-Beyond-the-Wall, but the man was an oathbreaker and a turncloak. He had even less trust in Melisandre. Yet somehow here he was, pinning his hopes on them. All to save my sister. But the men of the Night's Watch have no sisters.

Quote

He wondered where Mance was now. Did he ever find you, little sister? Or were you just a ploy he used so I would set him free?

Quote

Bring her home, Mance. I saved your son from Melisandre, and now I am about to save four thousand of your free folk. You owe me this one little girl.

Quote

"A grey girl on a dying horse. Daggers in the dark. A promised prince, born in smoke and salt. It seems to me that you make nothing but mistakes, my lady. Where is Stannis? What of Rattleshirt and his spearwives? Where is my sister?"

Even if Mance wasn't supposed to go to Winterfell and planning on intercepting Arya, Jon was still clearly expecting Mance to bring Ramsay's wife to him. And even if he didn't know it was Arya, the lord commander of the NW has no business searching for a random girl in a dying horse. Not to mention that forgiving Mance, an oathbreaker, could also be considered a betrayal to the NW.

6 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

When and how did he get caught? And doing what? Arya/fArya isn’t at CB. Ramsay writes to Jon making a number of demands and threats. Jon tells everyone he is going to make Ramsay answer for the threats. And just so it’s perfectly clear to the reader, Martin gives us Jon’s thoughts on this. 

ADwD, Jon XIII

Horse and Rory fell in beside Jon as he left the Shieldhall. I should talk with Melisandre after I see the queen, he thought. If she could see a raven in a storm, she can find Ramsay Snow for me. Then he heard the shouting … and a roar so loud it seemed to shake the Wall.

I'm not sure what that quote is supposed to explain. Ramsay is an idiot but it doesn't seem like he sent those demands and threats just because he woke up in a bad mood. Why would he repeat so much that he wants his bride back in a letter to Jon if he didn't think Jon had something to do with her going missing? Why would he provoke Jon by threatening Mance's life? Why would he call Stannis Jon's king? Is it supposed to be a coincidence that Ramsays comment are specifically about the questionable things that Jon actually did?

6 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

The NW does not exist to prevent the FF from crossing. The crows have forgot their purpose, same as the readers, and that’s why the NW is in trouble: they’re no longer true. 

Regardless of its original purpose or how misguided it is, the NW has tried to prevent the passing of wildlings for so many years that it has become one or their purposes. my point is that going against that purpose will understandably be considered as a betrayal of the NW.

6 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

Stannis came to aid the NW when no one else did. Fuck the rule book, it’s crunch time. And people need common sense and to make decisions based on the greater good. As I said earlier, Jon is one of few characters who has the greater good at heart.

I don't doubt that Jon did what any person would do, but that doesn't change the fact that he was breaking his vows, he thinks so himself, and he did things for personal interest when he shouldn't have. I get it about helping Stannis because he did aid the NW, but what greater good did Jon have in mind when he decided to send Mance to retrieve Arya? As understandable as it was, someone in his position doing that will inevitably have huge consecuences. And while it's true that his brothers weren't as concerned with the bigger threat as they should be, there were real issues they adressed that could seriously endanger the NW in the long term, like getting attacked for being considered traitors (which ended up happenning), the wall having a lot more people than they could feed or getting very indebted to Braavos. I get it that it's not like Jon had a lot of options and he was trying to do the right thing, but both sides have different but equally valid priorities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, elipride said:

Jon was putting a lot of faith in Melissandre's prediction of the girl in the dying horse being Arya:

To be fair, he does that only after Mel predicts the deaths of 3 of his rangers correctly. It's only then that he agrees to let her help Arya. 

Edited by Alexis-something-Rose

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, elipride said:

Even if Mance wasn't supposed to go to Winterfell and planning on intercepting Arya, Jon was still clearly expecting Mance to bring Ramsay's wife to him. And even if he didn't know it was Arya, the lord commander of the NW has no business searching for a random girl in a dying horse. Not to mention that forgiving Mance, an oathbreaker, could also be considered a betrayal to the NW.

Expectations vs reality right?  The reality is that if Mance had stuck to what Jon ordered him to do, he would have simply helped Alys Karstark get to the Wall quicker.  I don't think this absolves Jon of responsibility entirely, but it does limit his portion of blame.  Jon's thoughts afterwards confirm that he was expecting Mance to return with the "grey girl on the dying horse" as he wonders what Mance is up to.

As for Jon forgiving Mance, sure you could argue it could be considered a betrayal.  But two things- First, that was kind of taken out of Jon's hands by Stannis/Mel, who usurped that authority by "burning Mance" for show.  Sure, Jon probably could have killed Mance on the spot once he revealed himself, but we should also remember that Jon assumed Mance was dead and that Jon himself killed him.  Second, and more importantly, we see Jon struggle with the practicality of killing Mance when he tries to get Stannis to spare him.  Jon considers all the terrible things Mance has done, but still sees him as useful to the NW (which I'd argue Jon is 100% correct about).

Quote

I'm not sure what that quote is supposed to explain. Ramsay is an idiot but it doesn't seem like he sent those demands and threats just because he woke up in a bad mood. Why would he repeat so much that he wants his bride back in a letter to Jon if he didn't think Jon had something to do with her going missing? Why would he provoke Jon by threatening Mance's life? Why would he call Stannis Jon's king? Is it supposed to be a coincidence that Ramsays comment are specifically about the questionable things that Jon actually did?

I agree with this, again assuming that Ramsay actually wrote the letter.

Quote

Regardless of its original purpose or how misguided it is, the NW has tried to prevent the passing of wildlings for so many years that it has become one or their purposes. my point is that going against that purpose will understandably be considered as a betrayal of the NW.

By who?  We see that Marsh considers it a betrayal, but Marsh is an established racist who has had his views hardened by his own failures at the Bridge of Skulls and the injuries he sustained there.  But we also see that perhaps no less than the Old Bear would not consider it much of a betrayal, as he has similar thoughts about this after the Fist of the First Men.  I'd like to think anyone who was at the Fist of the First Men would agree with Jon, and we as readers I would think mostly agree with Jon.

Quote

I don't doubt that Jon did what any person would do, but that doesn't change the fact that he was breaking his vows, he thinks so himself, and he did things for personal interest when he shouldn't have. I get it about helping Stannis because he did aid the NW, but what greater good did Jon have in mind when he decided to send Mance to retrieve Arya? As understandable as it was, someone in his position doing that will inevitably have huge consecuences. 

Does Jon actually think he's breaking his vows?  I think his exact thought is "if I am forswearing my vows."  Jon is someone who acts for any good, whether it is greater or smaller.  As we see when "Arya" turns out to be Alys karstark, Jon is not about to leave anyone to suffer when he can help them.  Jon sent Mance to retrieve a girl on a dying horse fleeing a presumably bad marriage...knowing Jon he is not about to let that horse die and the girl suffer when he can help them, especially if he thinks that girl is his beloved sister but I think actually regardless Jon would act similarly.

Quote

And while it's true that his brothers weren't as concerned with the bigger threat as they should be, there were real issues they adressed that could seriously endanger the NW in the long term, like getting attacked for being considered traitors (which ended up happenning), the wall having a lot more people than they could feed or getting very indebted to Braavos. I get it that it's not like Jon had a lot of options and he was trying to do the right thing, but both sides have different but equally valid priorities.

I would not say Marsh and co. had equally valid priorities- they are largely looking to save their own skin and ignoring the apocalyptic threat that Jon and us readers know is coming down on them.  Jon is consumed by the "bigger threat", which he began to learn from Mormont and Qhorin Halfhand and was solidified by his trip to the weirwood grove.  But Jon is also a fundamentally good person who wants to help people wherever he can.

Jon had basically no options if you consider his reasoning correct that leaving the wildlings to die would be disastrous not only from a humanitarian standpoint but a practical one (adding to the army of the dead while the Wall doesn't have enough defenders to begin with).  I'd say Jon is 100% correct here as well, while Marsh is written to be close-minded for a reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

This is a misunderstanding of guest right. Mance was not the host in Winterfell.

Kudos on your reading of parallel events in King's landing and the Wall, I didn't see half those dots, let alone connect them. I'm pretty much sold on your interpretation, bar this side issue, as I think guest right does go both ways. I can't recall the exact quote, but when Bronze Yonn chastises Lynn Corbray for pulling a blade at the Eerie he says something along the lines of: "Put up your sword, are you a Corbray or a Frey, we're guests," which implies it's a reciprocal agreement. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Bastard of Bournemouth said:

Kudos on your reading of parallel events in King's landing and the Wall, I didn't see half those dots, let alone connect them. I'm pretty much sold on your interpretation, bar this side issue, as I think guest right does go both ways. I can't recall the exact quote, but when Bronze Yonn chastises Lynn Corbray for pulling a blade at the Eerie he says something along the lines of: "Put up your sword, are you a Corbray or a Frey, we're guests," which implies it's a reciprocal agreement. 

It does go both ways. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, elipride said:

Jon was putting a lot of faith in Melissandre's prediction of the girl in the dying horse being Arya:

Not a lot of faith, no.  But he was certainly hopeful. 

17 hours ago, elipride said:

Even if Mance wasn't supposed to go to Winterfell and planning on intercepting Arya, Jon was still clearly expecting Mance to bring Ramsay's wife to him. And even if he didn't know it was Arya, the lord commander of the NW has no business searching for a random girl in a dying horse. Not to mention that forgiving Mance, an oathbreaker, could also be considered a betrayal to the NW.

Do you realise that your quotes do more to support the points I’ve made than your own?

17 hours ago, elipride said:

I'm not sure what that quote is supposed to explain.

Really? Wow. 

17 hours ago, elipride said:

 

Ramsay is an idiot but it doesn't seem like he sent those demands and threats just because he woke up in a bad mood.

Huh? 

17 hours ago, elipride said:

Why would he repeat so much that he wants his bride back in a letter to Jon if he didn't think Jon had something to do with her going missing? Why would he provoke Jon by threatening Mance's life? Why would he call Stannis Jon's king? Is it supposed to be a coincidence that Ramsays comment are specifically about the questionable things that Jon actually did?

I strongly recommend a re-read. Paying close attention to the text. I’ll wager most of these questions will answer themselves. 

17 hours ago, elipride said:

Regardless of its original purpose or how misguided it is, the NW has tried to prevent the passing of wildlings for so many years that it has become one or their purposes. my point is that going against that purpose will understandably be considered as a betrayal of the NW.

You are thinking like the bean-counter, and by doing so you’re missing the forest. 

17 hours ago, elipride said:

I don't doubt that Jon did what any person would do, but that doesn't change the fact that he was breaking his vows, he thinks so himself, and he did things for personal interest when he shouldn't have. I get it about helping Stannis because he did aid the NW, but what greater good did Jon have in mind when he decided to send Mance to retrieve Arya? As understandable as it was, someone in his position doing that will inevitably have huge consecuences. And while it's true that his brothers weren't as concerned with the bigger threat as they should be, there were real issues they adressed that could seriously endanger the NW in the long term, like getting attacked for being considered traitors (which ended up happenning), the wall having a lot more people than they could feed or getting very indebted to Braavos. I get it that it's not like Jon had a lot of options and he was trying to do the right thing, but both sides have different but equally valid priorities.

I will have to get back to this part later. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Bastard of Bournemouth said:

I think guest right does go both ways. I can't recall the exact quote, but when Bronze Yonn chastises Lynn Corbray for pulling a blade at the Eerie he says something along the lines of: "Put up your sword, are you a Corbray or a Frey, we're guests," which implies it's a reciprocal agreement. 

Guest right does go both ways between host and guest. I think it's a bit of a grey area between guest and guest. Joer Mormont says that by all the laws of the hearth there is no crime so foul as for a guest to bring murder into a man's hall, but that was in response to Caster, the host, being killed. No one ever accused Roose of breaking guest right at the Twins, it is always the Freys who are accused of that, despite the fact that it is well known that Roose was involved in the treachery.

I don't think anyone in Winterfell considers the murders as breaking guest right, depite the fact that it could be argued that the men who were killed all "served" the host. When Roose questions Theon about the murders, he says he trusts Theon would not repay all his kindness with treachery, but makes no mention of the murders breaking guest right, nor is it mentioned by those who suspect Lord Wyman to be behind the murders. And when Hosteen Frey later takes a slice out of Lord Wyman, which leads to blood and several deaths of White Harbor men, Freys, and one of Ramsay's boys, the issue of guest right does not arise there either.

In my opinion Mance did not break guest right, no more than those involved in the lethal fracas in the hall did, because they didn't directly contravene the right between guest and host in the same way the Rat Cook, Red Wedding, or murder of Caster did.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mance Rayder and his accomplices violated guest rights.  A host-guest relationship existed between Roose and Mance.  It was wrong for Mance to murder the Bolton servants.  The Boltons accepted the Wildlings, gave them shelter from the elements and fed their bellies.  Roose is definitely the host and the Wildlings his guests.  For Mance to kill the Bolton servants is an act of guest right violation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a guest kills another guest, is that a violation of the guest right?

Share this post


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

If a guest kills another guest, is that a violation of the guest right?

Very good question.  That's a good question but it doesn't apply to what our friends are discussing before your message.  Mance Rayder chose to go to Roose Bolton's household.  He chose to participate in the wedding.  He chose to eat there, sleep there, and shelter there.  The Boltons chose to let him in.  Mance was their guest.  The people that Mance killed are not guests.  They were employed by Roose Bolton.  In other words, they were part of his household.  Sort of like Jory and Hodor are part of Eddard's household.  Mance killed members of the Bolton household.   Whoever murdered Little Walder killed a Bolton ally and a ward of theirs.  

To answer your question, it seems logical that the protection will extend to the other guest under the same roof.  There are limitations to guest rights but I do not believe it applies in this case.  Roose could have refused to let Mance Rayder in and thus avoid having him as guest.  He didn't.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

Very good question.  That's a good question but it doesn't apply to what our friends are discussing before your message.  Mance Rayder chose to go to Roose Bolton's household.  He chose to participate in the wedding.  He chose to eat there, sleep there, and shelter there.  The Boltons chose to let him in.  Mance was their guest.  The people that Mance killed are not guests.  They were employed by Roose Bolton.  In other words, they were part of his household.  Sort of like Jory and Hodor are part of Eddard's household.  Mance killed members of the Bolton household.   Whoever murdered Little Walder killed a Bolton ally and a ward of theirs.  

To answer your question, it seems logical that the protection will extend to the other guest under the same roof.  There are limitations to guest rights but I do not believe it applies in this case.  Roose could have refused to let Mance Rayder in and thus avoid having him as guest.  He didn't.  

I think if we're getting technical Winterfell is not Roose Bolton's household- if anything it is Ramsay's although it really isn't since his claim runs through "Arya" who is a fake.  I think it is also questionable whether guest right extends to a host's employees.

Finally I'd question whether guest right is really even invoked if Roose/Ramsay aren't really the ones providing the food.  I'm not sure if this stands for most of the time in Winterfell, but for at least the "Frey Pie" feast wasn't it stated that Manderley brought and provided the food?  I'm pretty sure that wouldn't invoke guest right since it's all about the "host" offering bread/beverages etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Moiraine Sedai said:

Mance Rayder and his accomplices violated guest rights.  A host-guest relationship existed between Roose and Mance.  It was wrong for Mance to murder the Bolton servants.  The Boltons accepted the Wildlings, gave them shelter from the elements and fed their bellies.  Roose is definitely the host and the Wildlings his guests.  For Mance to kill the Bolton servants is an act of guest right violation.

Except nobody in Winterfell, which is full of northmen and is from the pov of someone who was raised in the north, considers it so. Not Roose when he questioned Theon about the murders. Not Aenys Frey when he accused Lord Wyman. Not Theon when he accused the spearwives. No one considers Hosteen Frey to have violated guest right when he attacked Lord Wyman, causing more than a dozen the deaths. No one considers the man Ramsay had thrown from the castle walls as a violation of guest right. So I don't think it's as clear as you suggest.

Mance says of his previous trip to Winterfell:

"Your father would have had my head off." The king gave a shrug. "Though once I had eaten at his board I was protected by guest right. The laws of hospitality are as old as the First Men, and sacred as a heart tree." He gestured at the board between them, the broken bread and chicken bones. "Here you are the guest, and safe from harm at my hands . . . this night, at least."

If Mance thinks it's a one night arrangement, and given that he seems to respect the custom, then I don't think he considers it a violation. So if no one in-world seems to consider the murders to be violation of guest right, then why should the reader?

Of course, we could disappear down a rabbit hole and try to determine the details of the custom based on what little information we have. For example, we could debate phrases like "beneath his roof" or "a man's hall" and whether they apply to outside, and other such details. I don't know if this has been discussed elsewhere on the forum, but it should be as it is off topic here. I'm happy to debate this there, but for now I'm just going to say that in my opinion Mance did not break guest right at Winterfell. I'm happy to stand corrected if someone has strong evidence to the contrary.

 

 

 

 

Edited by three-eyed monkey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/4/2019 at 2:59 PM, Tagganaro said:

I think if we're getting technical Winterfell is not Roose Bolton's household- if anything it is Ramsay's although it really isn't since his claim runs through "Arya" who is a fake.  I think it is also questionable whether guest right extends to a host's employees.

Finally I'd question whether guest right is really even invoked if Roose/Ramsay aren't really the ones providing the food.  I'm not sure if this stands for most of the time in Winterfell, but for at least the "Frey Pie" feast wasn't it stated that Manderley brought and provided the food?  I'm pretty sure that wouldn't invoke guest right since it's all about the "host" offering bread/beverages etc.

Horses belonging to the Bolton household were slaughtered and everybody in the castle partook of the meat.   The Boltons are the host and Mance was their guest.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 1/3/2019 at 6:58 PM, kissdbyfire said:

Do you realise that your quotes do more to support the points I’ve made than your own?

How so? Are you avsolutely sure that Jon would've bothered to search for this girl if he didn't believe she could be Arya? And again, even if she wasn't Arya, a girl escaping from a marriage is none of his business as lord commander of the NW.

On 1/3/2019 at 6:58 PM, kissdbyfire said:

Really? Wow. 

Yeah, really. You're not being as clear as you think. You seem to think that Jon had no responsibility for Ramsay's letter because he didn't have Arya at the wall, and then you put that quote about Jon thinking that Melisandre could find Ramsay, which I don see what it's supposed to prove since we all agree that Jon wants to go find Ramsay. My point wasn't that Jon already had Arya or that he doesn't want to make Ramsay answer for his actions, but that Ramsay's threats an demands were mostly a result of Jon's actions.

On 1/3/2019 at 6:58 PM, kissdbyfire said:

Huh? 

How insightful.

On 1/3/2019 at 6:58 PM, kissdbyfire said:

I strongly recommend a re-read. Paying close attention to the text. I’ll wager most of these questions will answer themselves. 

I lend the books to my brother. Would it be too bothersome for you to answer those questions and enlighten a poor ignorant soul such as myself?

On 1/3/2019 at 6:58 PM, kissdbyfire said:

You are thinking like the bean-counter, and by doing so you’re missing the forest.

Of course I am, that's what I'm trying to make you see, the point of view of the bean-counters, aka Jon's NW brothers. It seems perfectly undestandable from their perspective to think that accepting the wildlings was going against their purpose, and even if they're missing the forest and the bigger threat, they have some legitimate concerns. Besides that, Jon siding with Stannis made sense because he was the only one who helped the watch and had more power than them, but that still went against their vows of neutrality and was partly the reason of Ramsay's letter. Forgiving Mance and allowing him to go to Winterfell made sense from an emotional perspective, but it was motivated by personal desires, not a greater good, and that was another part of the reason of Ramsay's letter. And then Jon plans to abandon the wall to make Ramsay answer for his threats, which Jon himself considers as breaking his vows. Again, I'm not saying Jon had bad intentions or anything, but it's not hard to understand why his brothers thought that he was destroying the watch.

 

Edited by elipride

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

×