Please explain Ramsay and the Pink Letter.

[kissdbyfire]

38 minutes ago, HallowedMarcus said:

Calm down. Jon acted that way and made other mistakes because he is 15 years old and GRRM wanted him dead so he can be resurrected on WoW.

You sound pretty sure about that. 

[Nevets]

5 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

Stannis is trying to win the north with military prowess, but regardless of that, if he is ever going to win the north he needs the north to be loyal to some lord that is loyal to him. King Tommen has Roose Bolton in that position. Stannis needs his own Lord of Winterfell and Warden of the North, because he does not intend to rule from there himself. So Stannis has by no means abandoned the idea of the north being ruled by someone loyal to him, he was forced to move on from Jon as that person.

At this point, all Stannis needs is the Northern lords swearing fealty to him personally.  When he heads back South, he can figure out who among those who have sworn to him is best to run the place in his absence.  Right now, he is intent on running things himself, so doesn't need an intermediary.

5 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

The letter did what it was designed to do, we know that.

We know nothing of the sort.  We know Jon decided to head south.  You are assuming that the letter wanted that.  There are plenty of other possible objectives for the letter that have nothing to do with Jon going anywhere.

These include: removal of the named individuals from Castle Black; return of FArya and Theon; Jon keeping his mouth shut and staying out of Northern politics, among others. 

5 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

What do you mean after it has been proven to Jon that Stannis lied and betrayed Jon? Who would prove Stannis wrote the letter? Well, there are plenty of hints in the letter that suggest it wasn't from Ramsay and was from Stannis. and Jon might pick up on some like "wildling princess", which Stannis kept calling Val despite Jon's persistence that she is no princess. But Stannis certainly would never want it known that the letter was his work. He would keep that to himself and leave the natural assumption that the letter came from Ramsay be.

Well, we the readers would find out.  And given that Stannis isn't a POV, that doesn't leave a lot of suspects.  And if others know,, then Jon can potentially find out.   In which case, you have turned a useful ally into an angry enemy.  Very risky, and we know what Stannis thinks of risk.  He is a relentless plodder, wining through attrition, not a risk-taker, making bold (and stupid) moves.

5 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

On the other hand we have Ramsay, who knows Arya is fake, and who knows Jon would recognize that fact. Is he hoping Jon will send back Jeyne and say nothing about Ramsay's marital claim on Winterfell being false? The Boltons are using a fake Arya to support Ramsay's claim on Winterfell and when fake Arya is stolen by Jon, one of the last known living people who would recognize that she is fake, Ramsay writes to Jon asking for her back? I don't see the sense in that.

He may well expect that.  FAryra, as far as Ramsay knows, is nothing to Jon,, and Theon supposedly destroyed Winterfell.  So he might hope to get them back in exchange for not causing trouble for the Nights Watch.  "Give her back and keep your mouth shut", and I will leave you alone.  And if nobody knows Jon and FArya met, no suspicions will be raised.

5 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

Jon doesn't know who Reek is, agreed. So why would Ramsay put Reek in a letter to Jon when Jon wouldn't know what the hell he was talking about?

We know why Stannis put it in there. Because Theon told him that is what Ramsay would want and Stannis is forging a letter that contains demands from Ramsay.

Huh?  I see no reason for Stannis to put it in if he is trying to fake Ramsay.  Jon isn't going to know no matter what.

 

5 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

For me, it makes far more sense if the reason she is mentioned in the letter is to inform Jon that she is free from the Boltons otherwise Jon could not act without fear she would be hurt in reprisal for his actions, as happens with hostages.

As I mentioned above, it actually makes more sense to threaten to harm her unless he comes to Winterfell.  That gives him a compelling reason to come.  Right now, he has no compelling reason to do so, and you still haven't given us one.  Insults and the like aren't going to do it.  There is no reason for Stannis to think Jon is reckless and impulsive.  He sure wasn't during his time as LC while Stannis was there.

[Amris]

I am team Ramsay. But first let me admit that Stannis and Mance are viable options too. There are good arguments for either. Still of those two I rather support Mance than Stannis because Mance seems sneakier and is well-placed in Winterfell.

The reason why I still tend to take the letter at face value and ascribe it to Ramsay is that I work in a profession RL in which hard evidence trumps circumstantial evidence every time. I can't shake that RL approach.

That does not mean that the Mance or Stannis theories are impossible or not well thought out. But they do rest on circumstantial evidence. While for Ramsay we have an actual letter and an actual signature. We also have a good motive.

(I readily admit that there are ways around that. Many intelligent people have pointed out intelligent ways to make the signature into a forgery or seed doubts about the authenticity of the letter, pointing to the ink used, the vocabulary and expressions used etc. Viable motives have been put forward for Mance and for Stannis also. All interesting and well thought-out. And - as I believe I mentioned - all circumstantial.)

I don't know who will turn out right and I wouldn't mind it to be Stannis (or especially Mance. He is kinda cool.) I am just explaining the reason why I still am sticking to Ramsay as the most likely candidate until or unless I get more contrary evidence.

As to the questions asked of us in the OP let me answer them from a Ramsay POV:

On 2/9/2019 at 10:18 PM, three-eyed monkey said:

[snip]

1. Ramsay's reaction to the escape of Theon and Jeyne. Does he hunt them or stay in Winterfell?

2. How there was Seven Days of Battle when Stannis' army was losing ever-mounting numbers to cold and hunger.

3. What happened in the battle with Stannis.

4. What happened with Mance.

5. How Ramsay came to have Stannis' magic sword.

6. When Ramsay wrote the letter.

7. What Ramsay expected the letter to achieve and why the letter was the best way of achieving that goal.

8. Why Ramsay did not write the letter in blood.

9. Why Ramsay did not get the signatures of the northern lords.

10. What Ramsay thought about the fact that Jon would know his bride is not Arya.

[snip]

1. Hunt or Stay? Ramsay has a history of hunts. So IMO it is near-certain he tried to hunt Theon and Jeyne. However he did not catch them. The weather was awful, sight was minimal and the Umbers were next to the castle and in a position to find the escapees first.

2. Battle? Maybe there were Seven Days of Battle or maybe there weren't. The letter might lie or not. Even or especially in case it really was written by Ramsay it might not contain only truths. We won't know until Winds comes out. However it is not impossible that Stannis' army lasts 7 more days even in its current strained state. For instance the Freys and Manderleys would bring supplies to the battle site which Stannis might capture. Ramsay or Roose might show up some days later and the battle continues. Or Stannis marches to Winterfell and the battle finishes there.

3. Stannis? All options are still on the table. We have to wait for Winds. He may have been killed. Or he may have tricked Ramsay into thinking he got killed. Or there may not have been a battle at all at the time the letter was sent and it is all just a ruse and lie.

4. Mance? Same. All options still open. He may be captured as claimed by the letter - or that may be a lie intended to provoke Jon. Maybe a spear wife was forced to talk so Ramsay heard about Mance but did not get him. Still claims to have gotten him. Or maybe he found him after all and really put him in a cage. Or Mance might be in the crypts, plotting and hiding.

5. The Sword? Again all is still open. Ramsay may lie and not have it. It could have been seen in the battle and Ramsay just claims to have it in order to sound more believable. Or he actually may have it - by conquering it during the battle. Or he heard about it from a spear wife and there was no battle at all and everything is just a lie including the claim he has the sword.

6. When? After Theon's and Jeyne's escape and after the capture of at least one spear wife and getting info from her about Jon's involvement and sending of the Mance party in order to free 'Arya'.

Everything else is still open. It might have been after the capture of Mance - if Mance was captured. It might have been after the 'Seven Days of Battle' - if that battle happened.

7. Motive? After the Theon and Jeyne escape and capture of at least one spear wife Ramsay got additional information about Jon's support of Stannis and sending Mance and Co to Winterfell. Also Ramsay needs Jeyne back. Ramsay realizes Jon needs to be dealt with. The letter is a win-win for Ramsay: a) Either Jon complies with the letter: Win for Ramsay (Ramsay gets huge concessions from Jon, including Jeyne back. And he still can later decide whether to attack Jon.)

b) Or Jon lets himself be provoked and attacks Ramsay: Win for Ramsay. Jon gets into Ramsay's reach and can be destroyed without Ramsay ever needing to attack the Night's Watch (an attack which would not be not viewed favourably in the North.)

c) Or Jon simply ignores the letter: Least preferrable situation from Ramsay's view. But still slight win for Ramsay. Ramsay now has set the stage for a possible later attack on Jon. At least some sort of justification even though it would still be unpopular in the North.

8. Blood? The conclusion that Ramsay only and always writes in blood is reaching. That we have seen him use blood on (2 I believe?) occasions does not allow the conclusion that he always uses blood. The sample is too small. Also if the letter is intended as justification for some sort of action against Jon by Ramsay it has to at least look semi-sane. Better ink than blood.

9. Additional Signatures? What for? The letter works perfectly with only Ramsay signing it. Also in his own worldview he is the guy in charge. The only one that counts. All other people are just playthings.

10. Fake Arya? I think it is a safe bet that Ramsay is  extremely annoyed by the knowledge that Jon can recognize Jeyne as fake. Ramsay sure would greatly prefer this situation not having arisen. Unfortunatly it did arise and Ramsay is stuck with it and has to work with it somehow. Jeyne did escape. Ramsay did not manage to capture her. He knows from the spear wifes that Jon is behind the escape so its a likely assumption she is on her way to the wall.

Now what can Ramsay do with this major setback?

Preemptively admit Jeyne is not Arya? Of course not. He has to keep up the pretense.

Either Jon goes along with it and keeps the secret. Win for Ramsay. Or Jon talks and claims 'Arya' is not Arya. Then all Ramsay can do is try to minimize the fallout:  keep up is own pretense (as the letter does), demand her back (as the letter does) and kill Jon - the inconvenient witness and also potential rival - at first opportunity (as the letter sets the stage for).

[Ser Hedge]

Mully had not been wrong; the old steward was trembling, his face as pale as the snows outside.

I know this is not an original q, but since we're examining all options again: Was the mere mention of bastardy on the letter enough to make Clydas go into such a full blown meltdown? I guess it's possible, but  it didn't feel like C was showing Jon that much deference before. You can imagine this happening with an LC of the old Bear's stature. I guess the logic could be that the LC asks "and why do you assume it is addressed to me, there are plenty of brothers here who fit this description, Satin, Mully, clap this presumptuous tomfool of an oaf in chains and throw him in the ice cells!", but Jon is not like that. So, it feels Clydas is acting a bit strange. This panic + the 'smear' of pink wax make it possible that:

i) Clydas opened and read it/shared contents with others

ii) CB authorship or interference can't be ruled out

iii) GRRM is trolling us all big time

"So, you nerds figured R+L = J, ha, big deal, chew on this then and knock yourselves and the internet out! Was it Ramsay, was it Mance, Stannis, Asha, Lady Dustin, Mel, Manderly, Thorne, Roose, Tybald on his own, a Queen's Knight, a King's Knight, all of them together? Aaaaaassrrrrrgggghhhhh ... He, he, he, he"

[three-eyed monkey]

6 hours ago, Nevets said:

At this point, all Stannis needs is the Northern lords swearing fealty to him personally.  When he heads back South, he can figure out who among those who have sworn to him is best to run the place in his absence.  Right now, he is intent on running things himself, so doesn't need an intermediary.

Put it on the long finger if you wish but that does not mean that Stannis does not need a loyal Lord of Winterfell who will be able to keep the north bound to his cause. Aegon will need the same when he leaves Storm's End, and if his campaign ever advances to the north he will need the same again for Winterfell. That's how the feudal system works and why after battles such as the Blackwater, disloyal lords are disinherited and loyal lords bestowed with their castles.

Stannis knows the northern lords have no love for him. They would not pay homage when he defeated the wildlings, going to Roose instead. Manderly sent him an insulting letter, and later explained the north's feelings toward Stannis to Davos. Lyanna Mormont's letter defied Stannis in favor of a Stark. The mountain clans loyalty is due to their respect for Ned. And he knows the north would not suffer a southron knight holding Winterfell. It cannot be denied that Jon would be the ideal candidate from Stannis' point of view, with no real viable alternative apparent at this stage.

6 hours ago, Nevets said:

We know nothing of the sort.  We know Jon decided to head south.  You are assuming that the letter wanted that.  There are plenty of other possible objectives for the letter that have nothing to do with Jon going anywhere.

I'm not assuming that the letter wanted that, I'm simply referring to what the letter said. Your friends heads are on the walls of Winterfell, come see them. If you want Mance back, who is in a cage at Winterfell, come and get him. That's twice the letter suggests Jon should go to Winterfell.

That the letter was designed to antagonize Jon is beyond doubt given the content. I'm sure we all agree that the author of the letter did not think its content was going to please Jon. It's designed to insult him and anger him, because as Stannis says of Hosteen Frey, anger makes men stupid. It threatens him and backs him into a corner where he has little choice but to lie down or come out fighting.

And that's what Jon does when he decides to go to Winterfell. Thus, the letter did what it was designed to do in my opinion. Perhaps there are other possible objectives to the letter, but if so I fail to see what they are.

6 hours ago, Nevets said:

These include: removal of the named individuals from Castle Black; return of FArya and Theon; Jon keeping his mouth shut and staying out of Northern politics, among others. 

Again, why would Ramsay expect Jon to keep his mouth shut about Arya being Jeyne?

How could Ramsay even think Jeyne and Reek would be at the Wall when a raven would get there weeks ahead of them?

7 hours ago, Nevets said:

Well, we the readers would find out.  And given that Stannis isn't a POV, that doesn't leave a lot of suspects.  And if others know,, then Jon can potentially find out.   In which case, you have turned a useful ally into an angry enemy.  Very risky, and we know what Stannis thinks of risk.  He is a relentless plodder, wining through attrition, not a risk-taker, making bold (and stupid) moves.

The objection was that Stannis could not expect Jon's loyalty after lying to Jon in the letter, but my point was that objection only stands if Jon should ever find out about it. Stannis would not tell him. That potentially leaves Theon and Tybald, either of whom may be losing his head or feeding a fire before long. There is an element of risk, that is true, but the fact is Stannis could expect Jon's loyalty after lying to him if Stannis was confident Jon would never learn about that lie.

Stannis is not a relentless plodder. He took a risk going to Storm's End to face Renly's superior host. He took a risk sailing for Eastwatch. His march on Winterfell was a page from Robert's book, and it was the weather that reduced him to plodding, not something of Stannis choosing. His defense of the crofters village will have to be bold. And he will have to be bold to take Winterfell because plodding will not suffice. If Stannis was not prepared to take risks then he would still be on Dragonstone.

8 hours ago, Nevets said:

He may well expect that.  FAryra, as far as Ramsay knows, is nothing to Jon,, and Theon supposedly destroyed Winterfell.  So he might hope to get them back in exchange for not causing trouble for the Nights Watch.  "Give her back and keep your mouth shut", and I will leave you alone.  And if nobody knows Jon and FArya met, no suspicions will be raised.

So you're suggesting the letter is some sort of deal? Stannis is dead, I have Mance, I know you didn't burn him and sent him to steal my bride instead. Give her back and I'll leave you alone. Except you'll obviously know that my marital claim on Winterfell is based on a lie, which makes you a loose end as far as I'm concerned, but you'll just have to trust I keep my word and that I never want to tie-up that loose end after you give my false bride back.

So what's in it for Jon? Nothing if he doesn't trust Ramsay.

A deal should involve a potential gain for both parties, like, I know about Mance and you know about Arya but I'll keep your secret as long as you keep mine. That way one party cannot reveal the other parties secret without risking the other party revealing their secret in return. But as Ramsay has Mance in a cage for all the north to see, then he no longer holds that particular bargaining chip.

So I don't see any evidence of a deal, or that the letter was written in a language that might be conducive to a deal. I just see a threat that Jon has to respond to one way or another, written in a way to antagonize Jon, and that provides Jon with the information that will inform Jon's response, such as Stannis is defeated and Arya is free.

9 hours ago, Nevets said:

Huh?  I see no reason for Stannis to put it in if he is trying to fake Ramsay.  Jon isn't going to know no matter what.

But we can see in the text why Stannis put it in, because it is a quote of what Theon said to Stannis about what Ramsay will want. If Stannis wrote the letter then that is the reason he put it in. I agree that Theon knows Ramsay well and can predict his actions, but not his speech word for word. That's too much of a stretch for me. Far more likely that Stannis was simply quoting Theon, Quoting what was said directly to you can easily be done to a high level of precision but I wouldn't say the same of predicting exactly what someone you know well will say at some time in the near future.

9 hours ago, Nevets said:

As I mentioned above, it actually makes more sense to threaten to harm her unless he comes to Winterfell.  That gives him a compelling reason to come.  Right now, he has no compelling reason to do so, and you still haven't given us one.  Insults and the like aren't going to do it. 

The letter is a compelling reason to go to Winterfell, and it did compel Jon to do that. I can't see how you can argue that insults and the like aren't going to do it when they did it. Threatening to harm Arya would also be a compelling reason, and that may have worked too, but that's not the way the author chose to go. Stannis knows Jon is invested in Winterfell. The watch take no part but Jon has done everything he can to assist Stannis against the Boltons and those actions speak louder than words.

4 hours ago, Amris said:

I am team Ramsay. But first let me admit that Stannis and Mance are viable options too. There are good arguments for either. Still of those two I rather support Mance than Stannis because Mance seems sneakier and is well-placed in Winterfell.

The reason why I still tend to take the letter at face value and ascribe it to Ramsay is that I work in a profession RL in which hard evidence trumps circumstantial evidence every time. I can't shake that RL approach.

That does not mean that the Mance or Stannis theories are impossible or not well thought out. But they do rest on circumstantial evidence. While for Ramsay we have an actual letter and an actual signature. We also have a good motive.

(I readily admit that there are ways around that. Many intelligent people have pointed out intelligent ways to make the signature into a forgery or seed doubts about the authenticity of the letter, pointing to the ink used, the vocabulary and expressions used etc. Viable motives have been put forward for Mance and for Stannis also. All interesting and well thought-out. And - as I believe I mentioned - all circumstantial.)

I don't know who will turn out right and I wouldn't mind it to be Stannis (or especially Mance. He is kinda cool.) I am just explaining the reason why I still am sticking to Ramsay as the most likely candidate until or unless I get more contrary evidence.

I agree that hard evidence trumps circumstantial evidence every time, but you need to examine what you consider to be hard evidence. You say the letter and signature are hard evidence but they are not. We all except that the letter and signature exist, but we are debating who created them. To say that the letter is signed by Ramsay is hard evidence that the letter is written by Ramsay is no different than a holy man claiming a sacred text is the word of god because it says it is the word of god. No theologian would argue that anymore because according to the laws of logic it is a circular argument and a logical fallacy known as begging the question.

You also say we have a good motive for Ramsay, but I don't see any hard evidence for that either. Stannis' motive towards Jon and the north is hammered home several times in the books. We know this is what Stannis wants and we can see how the letter almost advanced that goal, had the daggers not intervened. We could attribute the same motive to Ramsay but if we do it is no stronger coming from Ramsay than it is Stannis. We could attribute another motive to Ramsay, and it might even make sense, but it would only establish that Ramsay has motive, just as Stannis does. So all we have really established is that both men have motive.

5 hours ago, Amris said:

1. Hunt or Stay? Ramsay has a history of hunts. So IMO it is near-certain he tried to hunt Theon and Jeyne. However he did not catch them. The weather was awful, sight was minimal and the Umbers were next to the castle and in a position to find the escapees first.

I agree he hunted them. I don't buy that he didn't find them. Stannis camp is the obvious place to look as the Boltons thought the forces outside the walls were aligned with Stannis. And the Bolton's had a map with the location of the Stannis camp. And if they tortured the escape plan out of Mance or a spearwife then that plan was get to Stannis. So all roads lead to Stannis' camp. That is the obvious place to go, and we know that's where the Freys, Manderlys, and most likely Ramsay, did go.

5 hours ago, Amris said:

2. Battle? Maybe there were Seven Days of Battle or maybe there weren't. The letter might lie or not. Even or especially in case it really was written by Ramsay it might not contain only truths. We won't know until Winds comes out. However it is not impossible that Stannis' army lasts 7 more days even in its current strained state. For instance the Freys and Manderleys would bring supplies to the battle site which Stannis might capture. Ramsay or Roose might show up some days later and the battle continues. Or Stannis marches to Winterfell and the battle finishes there.

I said he couldn't survive seven days of battle. Of course he might have won a battle and resupplied and then fought another battle, and that might be described loosely as seven days of battle. But I think if he wins the battle at the crofters village, which I suspect he will, then he may have bought some time but he will have to move on Winterfell immediately as entering under the guise of returning victors is his best possible chance to enter the castle.

Personally, I think the seven-days of battle are included to account for the delay in Jeyne's escape and the sending of the letter. 3 days from Winterfell to Stannis camp, 1 day of battle and a raven to Roose from Tybald with news of a victory, 3 days back to Winterfell with the Karstarks leading the procession through the gates. I suspect Stannis will hold the castle seven days after Theon and Jeyne jumped.

6 hours ago, Amris said:

3. Stannis? All options are still on the table. We have to wait for Winds. He may have been killed. Or he may have tricked Ramsay into thinking he got killed. Or there may not have been a battle at all at the time the letter was sent and it is all just a ruse and lie.

The battle is happening, GRRM and his editor have spoken about it and we have strong hints that it will be from Asha's point of view. A lot of set up for the battle and aftermath has been identified, such as the frozen lakes and ravens trained to fly to Winterfell. So we can be certain there will be a battle, the question is do you believe that the pink letter would spoil the result of that battle? The letter telling us Stannis is dead reminds me of Davos' head and hands on the walls of White Harbor. 

Ramsay may have been misled about the battle but if he is following close behind the Freys, as Theon thinks, then it is not easy to see how that could happen. If Ramsay was misled about the battle, then that suggests to me that he stayed in Winterfell and did not ride out after Reek, but that contradicts how Ramsay has been characterized as someone who loves to hunt human prey.

6 hours ago, Amris said:

4. Mance? Same. All options still open. He may be captured as claimed by the letter - or that may be a lie intended to provoke Jon. Maybe a spear wife was forced to talk so Ramsay heard about Mance but did not get him. Still claims to have gotten him. Or maybe he found him after all and really put him in a cage. Or Mance might be in the crypts, plotting and hiding.

This is my point. The Ramsay Theory has a lot of maybes.

Stannis was the one who switched Mance and Rattleshirt, not Jon. Yet Jon is getting the blame. It's a serious accusation and one of the main elements of the letter that really forces Jon to act, as he was responsible for allowing Mance leave Castle Black, and now it seems that Mance has been caught stealing Arya from Ramsay. Maybe Ramsay caught Mance or maybe he did not, or maybe that doesn't really matter because maybe the accusation was constructed by Stannis to compel Jon to act.

How would Stannis know about Mance and the spearwives?

Stannis spent hours speaking with Mance and admitted that he had some cunning in him. Mance's cunning is best demonstrated by him sneaking into Winterfell disguised as a singer for Robert's feast. Mance was quick to tell Jon the story so why not tell Stannis, who is Robert's brother after all?

At Stannis' camp, Theon told about the rescue, and Abel, and the washerwomen who Theon knew were wildlings. You don't have to be Sherlock to put it together. Who else would infiltrate Winterfell disguised as a singer whose description matches Mance, and try to steal Jon's sister with the help of wildling women?

7 hours ago, Amris said:

5. The Sword? Again all is still open. Ramsay may lie and not have it. It could have been seen in the battle and Ramsay just claims to have it in order to sound more believable. Or he actually may have it - by conquering it during the battle. Or he heard about it from a spear wife and there was no battle at all and everything is just a lie including the claim he has the sword.

I have his magic sword. Tell his red witch.

Some people think this is just another coincidence, but I think it is clearly by design. The letter tells Jon to tell Mel that Ramsay has Stannis sword. Now whether you are in the coincidence camp or the design camp, you must agree that there are two references in the novels that connect to this. The first is when Stannis tells Davos the Mel has sworn to him that she has seen him in her visions, standing against the dark with lightbringer. The second is when Jon asks Mel if her fires would tell her if Stannis was dead, and she answers with certainty that he is not dead because he is the red god's chosen warrior and she has seen that in her flames. So any claim that Stannis is dead and Ramsay has lightbringer would certainly have to be treated with suspicion by Mel because of what she has seen in her flames. And Stannis knows this.

7 hours ago, Amris said:

When? After Theon's and Jeyne's escape and after the capture of at least one spear wife and getting info from her about Jon's involvement and sending of the Mance party in order to free 'Arya'.

So Ramsay is going to send a letter to castle black demanding his bride back weeks before she could possibly get there?

7 hours ago, Amris said:

Everything else is still open. It might have been after the capture of Mance - if Mance was captured. It might have been after the 'Seven Days of Battle' - if that battle happened.

Again, we're back to it working best if Stannis loses the battle or Ramsay is misled about the battle but we've already been over the problems with both those scenarios.

8 hours ago, Amris said:

. Motive? After the Theon and Jeyne escape and capture of at least one spear wife Ramsay got additional information about Jon's support of Stannis and sending Mance and Co to Winterfell. Also Ramsay needs Jeyne back. Ramsay realizes Jon needs to be dealt with.

But is writing the pink letter really the smartest way to achieve any of that? You want to deal with Jon and get your bride back. Would you send the pink letter to Castle Black and warn Jon of your intentions or would you just come down on Castle Black and take her back and deal with Jon as Lord of Winterfell with proof of Jon's crimes? Which strategy is more likely to bring the result you want?

And let's look at the result. From a narrative point of view, do you think the plan behind the pink letter was a success beyond the author's expectation, as would be the case for Ramsay, or do you think the plan failed, as would be the case for Stannis? I certainly believe it was the latter.

8 hours ago, Amris said:

. Blood? The conclusion that Ramsay only and always writes in blood is reaching. That we have seen him use blood on (2 I believe?) occasions does not allow the conclusion that he always uses blood. The sample is too small. Also if the letter is intended as justification for some sort of action against Jon by Ramsay it has to at least look semi-sane. Better ink than blood.

Nobody concluded that Ramsay only and always writes in blood. But we know Ramsay has written in blood when it suited the tone of the letter, and added flayed skin because of his cruel nature, so I think it is fair ask why not this letter given its tone.

And when you admit to skinning women, writing the letter in ink instead of blood is not really going to enhance you sanity claim.

8 hours ago, Amris said:

Additional Signatures? What for? The letter works perfectly with only Ramsay signing it. Also in his own worldview he is the guy in charge. The only one that counts. All other people are just playthings.

Well if he wanted to assert his authority as Lord of Winterfell then the signatures, which he has previously used for that purpose, would be of benefit. That's the whole idea of such signatures.

8 hours ago, Amris said:

10. Fake Arya? I think it is a safe bet that Ramsay is  extremely annoyed by the knowledge that Jon can recognize Jeyne as fake. Ramsay sure would greatly prefer this situation not having arisen. Unfortunatly it did arise and Ramsay is stuck with it and has to work with it somehow. Jeyne did escape. Ramsay did not manage to capture her. He knows from the spear wifes that Jon is behind the escape so its a likely assumption she is on her way to the wall.

Now what can Ramsay do with this major setback?

Preemptively admit Jeyne is not Arya? Of course not. He has to keep up the pretense.

Either Jon goes along with it and keeps the secret. Win for Ramsay. Or Jon talks and claims 'Arya' is not Arya. Then all Ramsay can do is try to minimize the fallout:  keep up is own pretense (as the letter does), demand her back (as the letter does) and kill Jon - the inconvenient witness and also potential rival - at first opportunity (as the letter sets the stage for).

I've dealt with this unwritten deal scenario above so I won't go over it again.

I don't see any hard evidence for Ramsay. There is hard evidence of a letter but not of who wrote it. Certainly there are suppositions on both sides of the argument, and there is a lot of circumstantial evidence on both sides because there is no hard evidence. But there is a substantial weight of circumstantial evidence against Ramsay when you add it all up.

In the letter alone, there are multiple inconsistencies that can only be accounted for by a series of maybes. There's the absence of not some but all the familiar characteristics of Ramsay's letters; huge spiky hand, the ink, the piece of skin, the signatures of the northern lords. Then there's Ramsay use of wildling princess, something we know Stannis calls Val. Then there's Ramsay's use of phrases Theon said directly to Stannis. All these inconsistencies can be explained by a series of excuses or they can all be explained by one thing, Stannis wrote the letter.

[three-eyed monkey]

18 minutes ago, Ser Hedge said:

i) Clydas opened and read it/shared contents with others

I think the letter was opened, read, and resealed by the conspirators before it was delivered to Jon.

[Clegane'sPup]

2 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

I think the letter was opened, read, and resealed by the conspirators before it was delivered to Jon.

I agree because the letter was sealed with a smear of hard pink wax.

Smear.

Not a seal made by a ring.  As in plop some wax on a parchment and stamp your ring seal into it.

A seal is a device for making an impression in wax, clay, paper, or some other medium,

 

 

[kissdbyfire]

2 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

I think the letter was opened, read, and resealed by the conspirators before it was delivered to Jon.

It’s quite possible. It’s also possible Ramsay didn’t have access to the seal, and just [angrily] smeared some pink wax thinking it would be enough. And it was. 

[Clegane'sPup]

3 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

It’s quite possible. It’s also possible Ramsay didn’t have access to the seal, and just [angrily] smeared some pink wax thinking it would be enough. And it was. 

Basically what you are saying is Ramsey told one of the three maesters at WF to smear some pink wax on his raven letter because the seal  matters not.

[Ser Hedge]

Fantastic debate. I get flip flopped between Stannis and Ramsay on this thread just like I did between Mance and Ramsay or whoever it was on other great threads. The NW conspirators opening and re-sealing the letter works well with any author.

I don't want to leave @Seams alone on their ice floe though (putting the Lady Dustin theory on ice - that's a lot of ice already, now for some fire). 

What Mel theories have going for them is:

1. Same motivation as Stannis

2. While Stannis has passively collaborated with Mel's skullduggery so far, Mel has really been the Machiavelli to conceptualise and actually carry out the back ops, so doesn't require a jump in Stannis' character arc per se.

3. She actually knows that Jon can acquire himself a proper force now with the arrival of Tormund & co. *this sets her aside from all other credible potential authors*

4. She knows about Mance and the SWs

5. She doesn't need a CB Raven, she's already there, just needs to make it look like a Raven has just arrived - or co-erce Clydas (is that why he was so out of sorts?)

The only weak point is "I want my Reek",

Dang, it was going so well I thought it could supersede the Stannis theory and by using the same excellent reasoning @three-eyed monkey provided to go head-to-head with the Ramsay and Mance theories.

If you could just fit in the Reek terminology here though, then you have a winner!

[kissdbyfire]

As excellent and well-thought as @three-eyed monkey’s post are, I remain unconvinced. And not just unconvinced, but out of all the main candidates, I think Stannis is the least likely to have written the PL. 

[Three-Fingered Pete]

Jon wrote the PL! It was all a false flag operation that went horribly, horribly wrong.

[Nevets]

4 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

n the letter alone, there are multiple inconsistencies that can only be accounted for by a series of maybes. There's the absence of not some but all the familiar characteristics of Ramsay's letters; huge spiky hand, the ink, the piece of skin, the signatures of the northern lords. Then there's Ramsay use of wildling princess, something we know Stannis calls Val. Then there's Ramsay's use of phrases Theon said directly to Stannis. All these inconsistencies can be explained by a series of excuses or they can all be explained by one thing, Stannis wrote the letter.

One thing I am very curious about.  Why does the letter demand delivery of Melisandre, Selyse, Shireen, and the others?  It's not really necessary to establish that it is from Ramsay.  And the likely result, if the letter is believed, is that they will leave Castle Black because remaining there is not safe.  I seriously doubt that this is in Stannis's interest, so I cannot imagine why he would put it in the letter.

It's hardly necessary to induce Jon to leave Castle Black.  In fact, it could get him to stay to help keep them safe.  It seems very much counter to what Stannis would be trying to accomplish.

4 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

Stannis knows the northern lords have no love for him. They would not pay homage when he defeated the wildlings, going to Roose instead. Manderly sent him an insulting letter, and later explained the north's feelings toward Stannis to Davos. Lyanna Mormont's letter defied Stannis in favor of a Stark. The mountain clans loyalty is due to their respect for Ned. And he knows the north would not suffer a southron knight holding Winterfell. It cannot be denied that Jon would be the ideal candidate from Stannis' point of view, with no real viable alternative apparent at this stage.

When those letters were sent, there was no reason to support Stannis.  He had won no battles.  He had taken no territory.  He had no supporters at all.  

The situation has changed.  If he has defeated the Boltons, he has won a significant battle, and taken the capital of the North, and a good bit of land as well.  He has shown himself to be viable, and thus potentially worth supporting. 

One of the Manderlys, Glovers, or Umbers would likely be acceptable to the North as a ruler, or as a regent for Arya (remember her?).

4 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

Again, why would Ramsay expect Jon to keep his mouth shut about Arya being Jeyne?

He would keep his mouth shut to avoid trouble with the rulers of the North,, because Jeyne is of no interest to Jon, and because everyone will assume he is lying if he says she is fake.  The will assume that he is trying to protect his sister or cause trouble with the Boltons and Lannisters.

Ramsay hasn't met Jon and doesn't know how honorable he is.  He probably figures that Jon is amoral, or at least pragmatic enough to go along with it.

4 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

How could Ramsay even think Jeyne and Reek would be at the Wall when a raven would get there weeks ahead of them?

We don't know the timing.  Stannis sent Jeyne to the Wall right after her arrival.  If Ramsay tracked her to his camp, then returned to Winterfell, then had a battle, then returned to Winterfell and sends a raven, a couple weeks could pass.  That is enough time to at least get close to Castle Black.  Especially when you have an author whose precision on timing of events is, shall we say, a bit sketchy.

4 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

The objection was that Stannis could not expect Jon's loyalty after lying to Jon in the letter, but my point was that objection only stands if Jon should ever find out about it. Stannis would not tell him. That potentially leaves Theon and Tybald, either of whom may be losing his head or feeding a fire before long. There is an element of risk, that is true, but the fact is Stannis could expect Jon's loyalty after lying to him if Stannis was confident Jon would never learn about that lie.

My objection is that other people will surely know about the letter.  A POV will know.  If it's Theon, Stannis would have to be foolish indeed to count on him staying silent, especially given the consequences if he doesn't.  And I can't think of anyone else,, which suggests Jon would find out.

[The Map Guy]

23 hours ago, HallowedMarcus said:

Calm down. Jon acted that way and made other mistakes because he is 15 years old and GRRM wanted him dead so he can be resurrected on WoW.

Sorry, I just don't like stupid plans working out as intended. Unless I am the one doing it.

[Nevets]

9 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

I'm not assuming that the letter wanted that, I'm simply referring to what the letter said. Your friends heads are on the walls of Winterfell, come see them. If you want Mance back, who is in a cage at Winterfell, come and get him. That's twice the letter suggests Jon should go to Winterfell.

That the letter was designed to antagonize Jon is beyond doubt given the content. I'm sure we all agree that the author of the letter did not think its content was going to please Jon. It's designed to insult him and anger him, because as Stannis says of Hosteen Frey, anger makes men stupid. It threatens him and backs him into a corner where he has little choice but to lie down or come out fighting.

And that's what Jon does when he decides to go to Winterfell. Thus, the letter did what it was designed to do in my opinion. Perhaps there are other possible objectives to the letter, but if so I fail to see what they are.

It looks like he is being taunted.  And Stannis has no reason to think that Jon will react much to taunts.  Stannis's own men taunted Jon repeatedly, and all Jon did was give them cold looks, and otherwise ignore it, or give reasonable answers to their comments.  So I hardly think Stannis is going to expect Jon to leave Castle Black and go to Winterfell just to look at heads on a wall and Mance in a cage.  Which is about all Jon can hope to accomplish with what he has available to him as of Stannis's departure.

[Amris]

13 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

The battle is happening, GRRM and his editor have spoken about it and we have strong hints that it will be from Asha's point of view.

First let me restate again that I have no problem with the Stannis theory. It is a good and intelligent theory. Personally I prefer the Mance to the Stannis theory - and my frontrunner still is Ramsay - but I can see all of them. And each would make for a good story IMO. Also you have good points of course.

Your reply is very long and I don't want to go over all of it. Just some minor points:

As to the quote above: Yes, I know a battle will be happening. What I meant was that we can´t be sure 'Seven Days of Battle' will happen just because the letter makes that claim. The letter might lie on the seven days claim - or it might exaggerate. Or count two battles as one. Or negelect to mention one or several breaks in the battle and so on. Or the claim may be right. For the Ramsay theory it actually doesn't really matter which length the battle will have.

13 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

This is my point. The Ramsay Theory has a lot of maybes.

Stannis was the one who switched Mance and Rattleshirt, not Jon. Yet Jon is getting the blame. It's a serious accusation and one of the main elements of the letter that really forces Jon to act, as he was responsible for allowing Mance leave Castle Black, and now it seems that Mance has been caught stealing Arya from Ramsay.

 

Maybes are a weakness only if a theory depends on a certain maybe to come true.

But for the Ramsay theory that's not the case here.

On the contrary: It doesn't matter which of the 'maybes' will actually happen as Ramsay writing the letter would make sense under a variety of different scenarios.

It doesn't matter that Stannis was the one who switched Mance and Rattleshirt. The letter is adressed to Jon and is designed to achieve something from Jon and present things according to that design. It is not supposed to be an accurate historical acount of who originally came up with the idea of switching Mance. It paints Jon as the one responsible because he is the lord commander of the Nights Watch and the letter wants something of him. Perfectly logical regardless of who came up with the original idea.

13 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

Maybe Ramsay caught Mance or maybe he did not, or maybe that doesn't really matter because maybe the accusation was constructed by Stannis to compel Jon to act.

Exactly what I mean: Yes, maybe Ramsay caught Mance or maybe he did not (and did just catch one or more spear wifes while Mance evaded capture). Ramsay as author makes sense either way. It does not depend on which of these maybes turns out to be true. That's a strength of the Ramsay theory, not a weakness.

Of course Stannis could still be the author. I am not disputing that. Or Mance could be. I am just arguing my case for the enjoyment of it. And pointing out that your Stannis case is not the only possible or logical solution.

13 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

I don't see any hard evidence for Ramsay. There is hard evidence of a letter but not of who wrote it. Certainly there are suppositions on both sides of the argument, and there is a lot of circumstantial evidence on both sides because there is no hard evidence.

We have a letter. You rightly admit that's hard evidence. Yet you claim we don't have hard evidence of who wrote it? We do though: the letter is signed. We have a written signature on a written document. If that's not hard evidence then I don't know what is.

Yes there is circumstantial evidence that calls the authenticity of the letter - and the signature - in question. Very true. And maybe it will turn out to be a forgery. Intriguing possibilities.

But simply refusing to admit there is hard evidence there seems like a cop-out. Come on: Your theory is good enough that you don't need that kind of 'close - my - eyes' policy.

13 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

So Ramsay is going to send a letter to castle black demanding his bride back weeks before she could possibly get there?

I said the letter was written after Theon's and Jeyne's escape and after the capture at at least one spear wife. I did not say it was written weeks before she could get to castle black. That's your words. But yeah: it was written before she could get to castle black. We know that for a certainty. Why? Because the letter did arrive before Jeyne did.

Btw: That's true under any scenario, regardless of who the author of the letter turns out to be.

13 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

But is writing the pink letter really the smartest way to achieve any of that? You want to deal with Jon and get your bride back. Would you send the pink letter to Castle Black and warn Jon of your intentions ...

 

Yes! Competely and unreservedly yes!

I already explained why. The letter is a win-win for Ramsay. Either Jon complies - win for Ramsay. Or he doesn't - win for Ramsay also because the letter sets up justification for later action.

13 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

... or would you just come down on Castle Black and take her back and deal with Jon as Lord of Winterfell with proof of Jon's crimes? Which strategy is more likely to bring the result you want?

No. Obviously not!

Attacking the Night's Watch is not well viewed on in the North. Much preferrable to first try to get Jon deliver without a battle. And set a justification up for the case he does not.

13 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

And let's look at the result. From a narrative point of view, do you think the plan behind the pink letter was a success beyond the author's expectation, as would be the case for Ramsay, ...

Exactly!

The letter is gold for Ramsay. That's one of the arguments in favor of Ramsay as author. Even if it turns out to not have been written by him he sure should have done it. It's just perfect for him.

[Tagganaro]

8 hours ago, Amris said:

First let me restate again that I have no problem with the Stannis theory. It is a good and intelligent theory. Personally I prefer the Mance to the Stannis theory - and my frontrunner still is Ramsay - but I can see all of them. And each would make for a good story IMO. Also you have good points of course.

Your reply is very long and I don't want to go over all of it. Just some minor points:

As to the quote above: Yes, I know a battle will be happening. What I meant was that we can´t be sure 'Seven Days of Battle' will happen just because the letter makes that claim. The letter might lie on the seven days claim - or it might exaggerate. Or count two battles as one. Or negelect to mention one or several breaks in the battle and so on. Or the claim may be right. For the Ramsay theory it actually doesn't really matter which length the battle will have.

Maybes are a weakness only if a theory depends on a certain maybe to come true.

But for the Ramsay theory that's not the case here.

On the contrary: It doesn't matter which of the 'maybes' will actually happen as Ramsay writing the letter would make sense under a variety of different scenarios.

It doesn't matter that Stannis was the one who switched Mance and Rattleshirt. The letter is adressed to Jon and is designed to achieve something from Jon and present things according to that design. It is not supposed to be an accurate historical acount of who originally came up with the idea of switching Mance. It paints Jon as the one responsible because he is the lord commander of the Nights Watch and the letter wants something of him. Perfectly logical regardless of who came up with the original idea.

Exactly what I mean: Yes, maybe Ramsay caught Mance or maybe he did not (and did just catch one or more spear wifes while Mance evaded capture). Ramsay as author makes sense either way. It does not depend on which of these maybes turns out to be true. That's a strength of the Ramsay theory, not a weakness.

Of course Stannis could still be the author. I am not disputing that. Or Mance could be. I am just arguing my case for the enjoyment of it. And pointing out that your Stannis case is not the only possible or logical solution.

We have a letter. You rightly admit that's hard evidence. Yet you claim we don't have hard evidence of who wrote it? We do though: the letter is signed. We have a written signature on a written document. If that's not hard evidence then I don't know what is.

Yes there is circumstantial evidence that calls the authenticity of the letter - and the signature - in question. Very true. And maybe it will turn out to be a forgery. Intriguing possibilities.

But simply refusing to admit there is hard evidence there seems like a cop-out. Come on: Your theory is good enough that you don't need that kind of 'close - my - eyes' policy.

I said the letter was written after Theon's and Jeyne's escape and after the capture at at least one spear wife. I did not say it was written weeks before she could get to castle black. That's your words. But yeah: it was written before she could get to castle black. We know that for a certainty. Why? Because the letter did arrive before Jeyne did.

Btw: That's true under any scenario, regardless of who the author of the letter turns out to be.

Yes! Competely and unreservedly yes!

I already explained why. The letter is a win-win for Ramsay. Either Jon complies - win for Ramsay. Or he doesn't - win for Ramsay also because the letter sets up justification for later action.

No. Obviously not!

Attacking the Night's Watch is not well viewed on in the North. Much preferrable to first try to get Jon deliver without a battle. And set a justification up for the case he does not.

Exactly!

The letter is gold for Ramsay. That's one of the arguments in favor of Ramsay as author. Even if it turns out to not have been written by him he sure should have done it. It's just perfect for him.

I agree with all this.  Well done.  Still agree that it's a possibility Mance wrote it or is somehow involved in the writing of it based on similarity of language used (again I am stuck on Mance/Rattleshirt telling Jon that Stannis burned the man he needed to in a cage for all the world to see which is essentially word for word what appears in the PL).

But yes, I think all of this makes sense if Ramsay wrote the letter.  He could have captured a spearwife or Mance, learned about Jon's involvement, and wrote this angry letter taunting Jon about everything.  

[three-eyed monkey]

12 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

As excellent and well-thought as @three-eyed monkey’s post are, I remain unconvinced. And not just unconvinced, but out of all the main candidates, I think Stannis is the least likely to have written the PL. 

Thank you. Just laying out the argument as best I can for people to consider and test and come to their own conclusion, as you have.

12 hours ago, Nevets said:

One thing I am very curious about.  Why does the letter demand delivery of Melisandre, Selyse, Shireen, and the others?  It's not really necessary to establish that it is from Ramsay.  And the likely result, if the letter is believed, is that they will leave Castle Black because remaining there is not safe.  I seriously doubt that this is in Stannis's interest, so I cannot imagine why he would put it in the letter.

It's hardly necessary to induce Jon to leave Castle Black.  In fact, it could get him to stay to help keep them safe.  It seems very much counter to what Stannis would be trying to accomplish.

This is a good question. Firstly, would the author if the letter, regardless of who it is, expect the demands to be met? I think they would consider it unlikely but of course there would always be a chance Jon might comply, so it's worth asking in my opinion.

From Ramsay's point of view you would think it is quite clear that he is demanding the remaining allies of Stannis to be handed over. Of course Jon is also considered an ally of Stannis. The crown consider him a traitor, and it is known in Winterfell that Jon had made a common cause with Stannis, who is obviously a rebel. So Jon is really an odd omission from the list, just as the wilding princess and little prince are an odd addition as they hold no apparent  value to Ramsay.

If Ramsay, in his capacity as Lord of Winterfell, really wanted to bring the weight of his authority to bear on Jon then I really do believe that the signatures of the northern lords would have been used for this purpose, or maybe the letter would have come from Roose, who is the Warden of the North. If the Boltons had caught Mance and had proof for their accusations against Jon, and they wanted to round up Stannis' remaining allies, and if they thought a letter was the best way to accomplish that, then that letter would not be the pink letter in my opinion.

One thing that we can be sure of is that every single person on the list has political value to Stannis. Mel, Selyse, Shireen are obvious. Val, who Stannis repeatedly calls wildling princess, is the mortar that Stannis plans to use to seal a peace between the free folk and the north, according to Sam. Monster is being held as hostage to ensure Mance remains loyal to Stannis, according to Mel. And not to forget the other two people requested, I want my bride and I want my Reek, which Theon told Stannis is what Ramsay really wants. So maybe Stannis requested the others on the off chance that Jon complies and sends them to him at Winterfell?

12 hours ago, Nevets said:

When those letters were sent, there was no reason to support Stannis.  He had won no battles.  He had taken no territory.  He had no supporters at all.  

The situation has changed.  If he has defeated the Boltons, he has won a significant battle, and taken the capital of the North, and a good bit of land as well.  He has shown himself to be viable, and thus potentially worth supporting. 

One of the Manderlys, Glovers, or Umbers would likely be acceptable to the North as a ruler, or as a regent for Arya (remember her?).

I agree. Stannis had to proceed without Jon. Roose and the Freys were coming through the neck. Jon had repeatedly refused his offer. He had no choice but proceed without Jon and was forced to settle for a Karstark Lord of Winterfell. Without Jon, Stannis has to do whatever else he can to proceed, but the fact remains that Jon swearing fealty would be greatly beneficial.

You're right to say that situation has changed. Stannis has gained the northern clans, although their loyalty is not very deep. They have a common cause regarding Winterfell but the clans are by no means bound to Stannis cause. Lady Glover declared for Stannis but Galbart and Robett have not spoken on the matter. Crowfood is tenuously aligned, with little strength. Hothor has the greater Umber strength and Greatjon remains lord and his sons and daughter heirs. And Arnolf Karstark has proved treacherous.

If we leave Jon aside and look at other candidates, the Stark girls are obviously next in line. Stannis told Jon that he has heard all he cares of Lady Lannister's claim, in reference to Sansa. Why would he not feel the same about Lady Bolton? Stannis had who he thought was Arya in his possession and he sent her away, so it seems, for whatever reason, that she is not central to his plan. Stannis' attitude towards women is well known so I don't think it his decision is surprising. But even if he did choose Arya, then he would still need to elect a regent to rule. I think it is more likely that he plans to match Arya with someone for political purpose, perhaps even whoever he gives Winterfell to as a means of directly connecting their family to the Stark line. But that regent or husband would need to be someone who brings something to Stannis, that being loyalty and the fealty of the north.

Manderly is the obvious choice given the wealth and strategic importance of White Harbor. That is where he sent his Hand to treat. The false reports of Davos' death might sway his opinion if ever he should hear them, but that aside House Manderly would probably be next on the list.

The situation with the Umbers is too complicated with Greatjon alive, though siding with Stannis might soon put an end to that. Still, Jon said that the Greatjon still has sons and a daughter to inherit before Mors and Hothor, so it is unclear exactly who Stannis would make such a deal with at this stage.

The there is Glover, Ryswell, Cerwyn, and a host of others. Any one of them would have a claim as good as the next but none would be particularly inspiring. None would unify the north the way the son of Eddard Stark would. None would have proved their loyalty to Stannis as much as Jon had.

If Jon says no, then Stannis will have to work with the pieces he has, but I certainly think it is worth trying something to get Jon where Stannis wants him. The reward would be significant so it is worth taking a risk.

14 hours ago, Nevets said:

He would keep his mouth shut to avoid trouble with the rulers of the North,, because Jeyne is of no interest to Jon, and because everyone will assume he is lying if he says she is fake.  The will assume that he is trying to protect his sister or cause trouble with the Boltons and Lannisters.

This requires a huge amount of trust from Jon, which he is not likely to afford them given their part in the Red Wedding. But even if they thought Jon was extremely naive despite him rising to the rank of Lord Commander, there are still problems with what you are suggesting.

Mance was caught after being sent by Jon to steal Arya. Arya is gone. They assume she is fleeing to Jon, over 600 miles away in Castle Black. Jon will know she is not really Arya when she gets there and Jeyne is free to declare to anyone who will listen that she was forced to play the part of Arya. Jon did not get his sister back but he has uncovered the false pretense that Ramsay's marital claim is based on. Jon made a common cause with Stannis and he sent someone to steal Arya. The Bolton's can't really expect Jon to just send Jeyne back and say nothing when he has been so active against them, even under the threat of force. And if they did want to make some sort of deal, the pink letter would not be how they would do it.

And if Jon chose to use fake Arya against the Boltons, then why would the north assume Jon and Jeyne are lying as opposed to the Boltons? Do you really think the Boltons believe the north is truly loyal to them given how they rose to power? Roose is trying to manage a potentially explosive political situation, which Lady Dustin said Jeyne's constant tears were enough to jeopardize. It's no secret that there are houses plotting against the Boltons and Roose is well aware of that. The truth about Arya would be a huge blow.

15 hours ago, Nevets said:

Ramsay hasn't met Jon and doesn't know how honorable he is.  He probably figures that Jon is amoral, or at least pragmatic enough to go along with it. 

We don't know what Ramsay thinks of Jon. Why do you think what you're suggesting is more probable? We know what Stannis thinks of Jon and we know he has motive surrounding Jon as it is clear in the text.

15 hours ago, Nevets said:

We don't know the timing.  Stannis sent Jeyne to the Wall right after her arrival.  If Ramsay tracked her to his camp, then returned to Winterfell, then had a battle, then returned to Winterfell and sends a raven, a couple weeks could pass.  That is enough time to at least get close to Castle Black.  Especially when you have an author whose precision on timing of events is, shall we say, a bit sketchy.

Again, this scenario requires Stannis to be defeated, which I don't believe. Winterfell will be resolved one way or another long before Jeyne gets to the Wall. Jeyne will only be a day into her journey when the battle of ice happens. She would have weeks to go and Stannis will have to move decisively before that even if he does acquire whatever meager supplies the Freys had with them. Food supplies were stretching thin in Winterfell before they left.

17 hours ago, Nevets said:

My objection is that other people will surely know about the letter.  A POV will know.  If it's Theon, Stannis would have to be foolish indeed to count on him staying silent, especially given the consequences if he doesn't.  And I can't think of anyone else,, which suggests Jon would find out.

Stannis would know that anyone else who knows about the letter would potentially tell Jon. That's why I think he would keep the number down. He would know there are ways any plan can fail and the pink letter plan is no different. Much will depend on how Jon acts when he receives the letter, and that part is beyond Stannis' control. But who he brings into his plan is within his control. Tybald and Theon are the only two people he would potentially need to write and send the letter.

Tybald has the more practical use, in that he can write, seal, and send the raven. He has been caught spying for Roose and sending Stannis location to Winterfell, so he's up for execution. I bet he'd be willing to send a raven in exchange for his life. But he's not someone Stannis is likely to trust so he'd be at risk of execution straight after, or at least losing his tongue.

Theon would not need to know about the letter, as Stannis could simply use what Theon told him without Theon being aware what the information was being used for. However, I think that he will know about the letter, and we will get the reveal through his pov, and that he could possibly inform Jon at some stage. In fact, I almost expect that.

12 hours ago, Nevets said:

It looks like he is being taunted.  And Stannis has no reason to think that Jon will react much to taunts.  Stannis's own men taunted Jon repeatedly, and all Jon did was give them cold looks, and otherwise ignore it, or give reasonable answers to their comments.  So I hardly think Stannis is going to expect Jon to leave Castle Black and go to Winterfell just to look at heads on a wall and Mance in a cage.  Which is about all Jon can hope to accomplish with what he has available to him as of Stannis's departure.

It's more than just taunts, it's everything in the letter. The threat against Jon, the accusations about Mance, the fact that Arya is no longer a hostage, the claim that Stannis is dead and defeated, the subtle suggestions to come to Winterfell, the display of Ramsay's cruel nature, the injustice of Ramsay holding Winterfell after what they did to Robb, the whole thing is designed to push Jon's buttons.

And Jon can accomplish much, from the rescue of Mance all the way up to raising the north in the name of his father against the Boltons, whose bitter betrayal of Robb came at a cost to every other northern house, which is something the northern houses are unlikely to have forgotten.

9 hours ago, Amris said:

As to the quote above: Yes, I know a battle will be happening. What I meant was that we can´t be sure 'Seven Days of Battle' will happen just because the letter makes that claim. The letter might lie on the seven days claim - or it might exaggerate. Or count two battles as one. Or negelect to mention one or several breaks in the battle and so on. Or the claim may be right. For the Ramsay theory it actually doesn't really matter which length the battle will have.

I don't think seven days of battle is possible, but I agree that the letter could be using the term loosely. Personally, I believe seven days of battle is in the letter for a reason, regardless of how mundane the reason may sound. I believe the letter was written seven days after Jeyne's escape and Stannis is simple accounting for that time. But if it's just being used loosely then I would say it is a very southron thing to say. Seven hells. Seven save us. Seven days of battle?

As Jon doesn't know what's happening at Winterfell and the crofters village then I would think that he thinks the seven days of battle refer to Stannis' attempt to take Winterfell. This would involve a siege and possibly seven consecutive days of assault which ended with Stannis and his friends heads upon the walls. Perhaps such a scenario could develop after the battle at the crofters village. But the battle of ice would seem anticlimactic if Stannis then dies at the walls of Winterfell.

9 hours ago, Amris said:

First let me restate again that I have no problem with the Stannis theory. It is a good and intelligent theory. Personally I prefer the Mance to the Stannis theory - and my frontrunner still is Ramsay - but I can see all of them. And each would make for a good story IMO. Also you have good points of course.

Thank you.

9 hours ago, Amris said:

Exactly what I mean: Yes, maybe Ramsay caught Mance or maybe he did not (and did just catch one or more spear wifes while Mance evaded capture). Ramsay as author makes sense either way. It does not depend on which of these maybes turns out to be true. That's a strength of the Ramsay theory, not a weakness.

No, because the Ramsay theory depends on Ramsay catching Mance or a spearwife alive while the Stannis theory does not.

9 hours ago, Amris said:

Of course Stannis could still be the author. I am not disputing that. Or Mance could be. I am just arguing my case for the enjoyment of it. And pointing out that your Stannis case is not the only possible or logical solution.

And I'm simply pointing out that Ramsay writing the letter is not a logical solution.

10 hours ago, Amris said:

We have a letter. You rightly admit that's hard evidence. Yet you claim we don't have hard evidence of who wrote it? We do though: the letter is signed. We have a written signature on a written document. If that's not hard evidence then I don't know what is. 

Yes there is circumstantial evidence that calls the authenticity of the letter - and the signature - in question. Very true. And maybe it will turn out to be a forgery. Intriguing possibilities.

But simply refusing to admit there is hard evidence there seems like a cop-out. Come on: Your theory is good enough that you don't need that kind of 'close - my - eyes' policy.

Then by your own admission you don't know what is. We have hard evidence that Jon received a letter signed by Ramsay. We do not have hard evidence that the letter was written by Ramsay. You or I could write a letter and sign it Ramsay, but that letter would not prove it was written by Ramsay. However, if we knew the signature matched Ramsay's signature, then we would have more compelling evidence that the letter is from Ramsay, although even then we would still have to allow room for potential imitation. But we don't because Ramsay's characteristic huge spiky hand is not mentioned in this case.

If GRRM wanted to nail it down that the letter was indeed from Ramsay he had ample opportunity to do it but he did not.

10 hours ago, Amris said:

I said the letter was written after Theon's and Jeyne's escape and after the capture at at least one spear wife. I did not say it was written weeks before she could get to castle black. That's your words. But yeah: it was written before she could get to castle black. We know that for a certainty. Why? Because the letter did arrive before Jeyne did.

Btw: That's true under any scenario, regardless of who the author of the letter turns out to be.

Yes but as Stannis doesn't really want Arya back he can send the letter whenever because getting Arya back is not the point of the letter.

Ramsay sending the letter to ask for Jeyne back long before she would even arrive seems pointless, as there is no guarantee she will arrive there in the first place. Sending it later would make more sense, but if you think Stannis is going to take Winterfell shortly after the battle of ice then Ramsay sending it weeks later and closer to the time of Jeyne's possible arrival at the Wall doesn't really make sense.

10 hours ago, Amris said:

Yes! Competely and unreservedly yes!

I already explained why. The letter is a win-win for Ramsay. Either Jon complies - win for Ramsay. Or he doesn't - win for Ramsay also because the letter sets up justification for later action.

Or Jon and Jeyne just tell the north about the lie and try to undermine the Boltons while they rally the northern lords, who Roose has a tenuous hold on. That's a big lose.

10 hours ago, Amris said:

No. Obviously not!

Attacking the Night's Watch is not well viewed on in the North. Much preferrable to first try to get Jon deliver without a battle. And set a justification up for the case he does not.

Then why not write a letter that requests Jon be delivered for his crimes by authority of the Lord of Winterfell. Again, if you wanted to do that then writing the pink letter to Jon would not be the best way to achieve it.

10 hours ago, Amris said:

Exactly!

The letter is gold for Ramsay. That's one of the arguments in favor of Ramsay as author. Even if it turns out to not have been written by him he sure should have done it. It's just perfect for him. 

That's the problem, the letter is gold for Ramsay despite it's stupidity from his point of view. I don't see that as the style of the series. I think it is more likely that the plan behind the pink letter failed when Jon was stabbed, rather than it succeeding beyond the author's wildest possible expectation.

17 hours ago, The Map Guy said:

Sorry, I just don't like stupid plans working out as intended.

Agreed, and from what I have read so far, neither does GRRM.

[three-eyed monkey]

20 hours ago, Ser Hedge said:

The only weak point is "I want my Reek",

Dang, it was going so well I thought it could supersede the Stannis theory and by using the same excellent reasoning @three-eyed monkey provided to go head-to-head with the Ramsay and Mance theories. 

If you could just fit in the Reek terminology here though, then you have a winner!

Let's compare them from an egocentric point of view. The first line of the letter is about Stannis. I'm certain that Stannis would consider his death the first and most important thing to put down in the letter. My guess is Mance would start with something like Mance being caught. Ramsay might start with something of prime importance to him, like how he wants his bride back.

But, you're right. If you can fit the Reek terminology you will have a winner.

When I compare the potential author's, including Ramsay, Mel, Lady Dustin, Mance, Aliser Thorne, Bowen Marsh, Varys, Littlefinger and whomever else you care to mention, I always come back to the same point. We can argue their motives and means and opportunity, but for me the hardest thing to get past is "I want my bride. And I want my Reek."

This is almost as good as confirmation in my eyes because we can clearly trace where that line came from. Theon told Stannis that is what Ramsay would want. The use of that phrase in the letter cannot be explained easily for any other potential author. And even if we do concoct an explanation, it will not be a straight forward as the author simply quoted what Theon said to them, which I believe is the case.

 

 

[HallowedMarcus]

On 3/25/2019 at 11:34 PM, kissdbyfire said:

On 3/25/2019 at 10:53 PM, HallowedMarcus said:

Calm down. Jon acted that way and made other mistakes because he is 15 years old and GRRM wanted him dead so he can be resurrected on WoW.

You sound pretty sure about that. 

   He made mistakes indeed. He should have surrounded himself with People who were close to him, nominated another Steward and things like that before acting the way he did, before allowing Wildlings come to the wall. And Mellisandra also warned him about the knives. She was right about a girl arriving at Castle Blck ut wrong about that girl being his sister. But a girl did arrive and an important one. Also, he should know that it was considered treason to go out and fight directly against the Boltons and therefore people in the Watch might go against him by force trying at least to arrest him. He also sensed that his Werewolf was upset against men that were inside with him when he read the Pink Letter but even so locked him behind instead of bringing it with him. And many, many more. So yes I am pretty sure about that.