If Mance or Dustin wrote the Pink Letter, what were their intentions? What would they gain?

[BlackLightning]

2 minutes ago, Bowen 747 said:

He wouldn't know about Val.  He wouldn't know about Jon's lie.  Jon kept the mission to get Arya secret.  Petyr has never met Jon.  For all he knew, the boy was honorable and like most men would stick to his duties.

True. It's possible. But never ever underestimate Petyr Baelish.

But then again, we don't know when the Pink Letter was written or when it was sent. Because according to the Pink Letter, Stannis is dead. If it's true (it probably isn't), then the Pink Letter didn't chronologically happen yet. 

Honestly, Ramsay Bolton knowing about Val is also quite a huge stretch.

Why can't Varys be an option? I've always found Satin to be very, very suspect.

[kissdbyfire]

7 minutes ago, Jabar of House Titan said:

True. It's possible. But never ever underestimate Petyr Baelish.

But then again, we don't know when the Pink Letter was written or when it was sent. Because according to the Pink Letter, Stannis is dead. If it's true (it probably isn't), then the Pink Letter didn't chronologically happen yet. 

I’m not sure what you mean here? 

7 minutes ago, Jabar of House Titan said:

Honestly, Ramsay Bolton knowing about Val is also quite a huge stretch.

Why can't Varys be an option? I've always found Satin to be very, very suspect.

I don’t think Satin is suspect, but I do think there’s more to him than what we’ve been told. My money would be in Satin being the bastard son of a noble, perhaps? He can read and write, and he keeps forgetting to tend to Jon’s fire, like he isn’t that used to being a servant. But I place him firmly on camp Jon. 

[CAllDSmith]

20 minutes ago, Bowen 747 said:

Right because Theon hid the truth from the wildlings. Mance doesn't know.  The writer knew she's not the real Arya.  We can rule out Mance Rayder as a suspect.  

Except we can't Because as I pointed out above the letter does not prove that the person writing it knows that Arya is fake. Calling her "my bride" instead of "your sister" is merely patriarchal bullshit Ramsay falls into. He does not think Jeyne Poole/Arya is a human being. She is HIS bride, HIS property. Describing her as "YOUR sister" gives Jon some right to her that Ramsay does not believe Jon has to the real Arya or the fake Arya. 

 

40 minutes ago, bent branch said:

I agree that the Wildling women wouldn't call Val a princess, but they would report what they SAW. Ramsay would interpret it in his fashion. GRRM tells the story from certain POVs. From those POVs you have to be willing to shift your focus to what other people in that scene are seeing and experiencing to understand how information travels.

Except there isn't a line of questioning that gets him details about Val in that way, or a description about that seen. Ramsay would be asking these questions in his interrogation: Who are you? Why are you here? Where is my wife? Where is my Reek? Fuck my dogs and die screaming. 

32 minutes ago, Bowen 747 said:

He tortured Mance.  He knows everything the turncloak crow knows.  Then he tortured his prisoners of war from his victory over Stannis.  

Except we cannot assume that he actually HAS that victory. Or took any prisoners. He doesn't mention any prisoners in the letter, and his "seven days of battle" are bull. Mandely isn't waiting for seven days of battle to screw over the Freys and Boltons, the Hornwoods aren't fighting against the man who freed Larence Snow for seven days, the Cerwyns aren't fighting alongside the people who murdered their family and liege lord for seven days, the Flints aren't fighting under the command of the man who made Arya Stark scream and commit bestiality for seven days. (Arya is named after her Flint great-grandmother) House Locke isn't going to waste its men when it's aligned with Manderly to take revenge. Dagmer Cleftjaw isn't going to just sit in Torrhen's Square when he hears Theon is alive (seriously if Theon and Asha are running anywhere it's there.) Maege Mormont and Galbart Glover aren't just going to keep waiting around for spring to come in the Neck when their kin are fighting for their lives. And Howland Reed (The Hooded Man) isn't just going to let his duty to Robb, Jon, Ned, and his presumed murdered children go for seven days. There's also another issue a lot of us over look. 

The last time we see Abel, he's in a room with Roose Bolton singing. By what means did Mance get revealed and caught where Roose and Ramsay are both alive where one is not mentioned to be a fighter of any amazing skill and the latter 120% isn't a good fighter since he started training WAY too late. (Seriously I don't even believe Ramsay can for sure read.) 

[bent branch]

20 minutes ago, CAllDSmith said:

Except there isn't a line of questioning that gets him details about Val in that way, or a description about that seen. Ramsay would be asking these questions in his interrogation: Who are you? Why are you here? Where is my wife? Where is my Reek? Fuck my dogs and die screaming. 

1.  You assume Ramsay is the only one interrogating.

2.  You assume that everyone, including the author thinks like you do.

The author has written a letter that has some unknowns in it and requires the reader to recognize that everything in the letter (except for the Stannis/battle information) can be known by Ramsay. You have to be paying attention and you have to be able to intuit what non-POVs are seeing and experiencing. If Ramsay had enough information about that scene to know that Rattleshirt was burned instead of Mance, then he would have enough information to know who all witnessed Mance's "death". Once upon a time I went through and literally gave a quote for each and every piece of information in that letter (except for the Stannis/battle stuff) and some individuals still refused to believe that Ramsay could know all of that. Therefore, I will leave you to believe what you want to believe, I will stay with my opinion that Ramsay wrote the letter, because I have never heard an even semi-good reason why it wasn't written by him.

[CAllDSmith]

2 minutes ago, bent branch said:

1.  You assume Ramsay is the only one interrogating.

2.  You assume that everyone, including the author thinks like you do.

The author has written a letter that has some unknowns in it and requires the reader to recognize that everything in the letter (except for the Stannis/battle information) can be known by Ramsay. You have to be paying attention and you have to be able to intuit what non-POVs are seeing and experiencing. If Ramsay had enough information about that scene to know that Rattleshirt was burned instead of Mance, then he would have enough information to know who all witnessed Mance's "death". Once upon a time I went through and literally gave a quote for each and every piece of information in that letter (except for the Stannis/battle stuff) and some individuals still refused to believe that Ramsay could know all of that. Therefore, I will leave you to believe what you want to believe, I will stay with my opinion that Ramsay wrote the letter, because I have never heard an even semi-good reason why it wasn't written by him.

So I'm just gonna let you know that's pretty close to insulting me right there. But, you are also begging the question, while not answering my questions AND doing the same thing you accused me of (thinking that GRRM think like you do.) The letter mentioning that Mance was burned is not enough to prove that Ramsay knew what you're saying he knew. The letter even says "You told the world." That is how Ramsay could know that Mance was burned, not through torture. And even if Roose, or the Bastard's Boy I can't remember the name of were interrogating Mance or any of the survivors (Again how did legendary warrior Mance get captured without killing Roose or Ramsay?) by what process would they get into a position to discuss that scene in such a way that "wildling princess" would be an apt description of Val? Sister to a queen =/= princess. 

Your entire premise regards on this 

9 minutes ago, bent branch said:

If Ramsay had enough information about that scene to know that Rattleshirt was burned instead of Mance, then he would have enough information to know who all witnessed Mance's "death". 

The bold is you making a statement that you then have to defend. You have to prove that Ramsay knows what follows. He has 1. Not stated any knowledge of knowing who Rattleshirt is. Merely that Mance is alive when Jon told the world they had burned him. There's no proof in the letter of knowledge that someone else was burned in his place. Second, knowledge that Mance is alive (regardless of whether or not Ramsay has knowledge related to Rattleshirt.) does not mean knowledge of every individual who was present at the burning, or detailed descriptions of even the chief individuals in such a way that Ramsay could somehow get the false impression (the very same false impression that people at the wall have.) that Val is a wildling princess. 

I'm not going to waste time using Occam's Razor here to show that none of the authorship theories for the Letter can be confirmed as more accurate than another, because you're clearly too comfortable with your dogma (An unquestioned opinion is not an opinion it's a dogma.) to entertain any of the many reasons why it's wrong. And I'm honestly not invested enough in any of the possibilities for authorship that don't involve logical improvable matters (IE Melisandre's plan to instigate the coup so Jon can be released from his vows.) to continue debating you specifically on this matter.

[bent branch]

38 minutes ago, CAllDSmith said:

So I'm just gonna let you know that's pretty close to insulting me right there. But, you are also begging the question, while not answering my questions AND doing the same thing you accused me of (thinking that GRRM think like you do.) The letter mentioning that Mance was burned is not enough to prove that Ramsay knew what you're saying he knew. The letter even says "You told the world." That is how Ramsay could know that Mance was burned, not through torture. And even if Roose, or the Bastard's Boy I can't remember the name of were interrogating Mance or any of the survivors (Again how did legendary warrior Mance get captured without killing Roose or Ramsay?) by what process would they get into a position to discuss that scene in such a way that "wildling princess" would be an apt description of Val? Sister to a queen =/= princess. 

Your entire premise regards on this 

The bold is you making a statement that you then have to defend. You have to prove that Ramsay knows what follows. He has 1. Not stated any knowledge of knowing who Rattleshirt is. Merely that Mance is alive when Jon told the world they had burned him. There's no proof in the letter of knowledge that someone else was burned in his place. Second, knowledge that Mance is alive (regardless of whether or not Ramsay has knowledge related to Rattleshirt.) does not mean knowledge of every individual who was present at the burning, or detailed descriptions of even the chief individuals in such a way that Ramsay could somehow get the false impression (the very same false impression that people at the wall have.) that Val is a wildling princess. 

I'm not going to waste time using Occam's Razor here to show that none of the authorship theories for the Letter can be confirmed as more accurate than another, because you're clearly too comfortable with your dogma (An unquestioned opinion is not an opinion it's a dogma.) to entertain any of the many reasons why it's wrong. And I'm honestly not invested enough in any of the possibilities for authorship that don't involve logical improvable matters (IE Melisandre's plan to instigate the coup so Jon can be released from his vows.) to continue debating you specifically on this matter.

You are aware that you are the one who made the claim that the interogation would have gone only one specific way (your way), right?

[CAllDSmith]

7 minutes ago, bent branch said:

You are aware that you are the one who made the claim that the interogation would have gone only one specific way (your way), right?

You are aware that saying "you are aware" in response to a longer statement while still avoiding answering the questions where the burden of proof lies on you is some sophomoric rhetoric right? 

[Aegon VII]

On 4/12/2019 at 11:06 AM, Shpati said:

I read a lot of theories about the Pink Letter. And many suggest that Mance or Dustin wrote it (maybe both together). She has the most knowledge about the details in that letter. 

Anyway... my question is why? Why would one write such a cryptic letter hoping Jon gets the details that these theories suggest? Why would they think that is a smart idea? What were they trying to get Jon to do? If their letter plan was a success, what would be the outcome and what would they gain?

Were they just trying to get Jon to march on Winterfell with a bunch of Wildings? Would that even help? I guess if that was the plan, it makes sense to enrage Jon as much as possible so he can break his vows and leave. But I think it would make more sense to just write that Arya is still captured and suffering, and that Stannis needs more troops if he is to have a chance. That way he can statically meet with Stannis or another anti-Bolton army.

It seems like the only clear intention in this letter was to get Jon killed which Ramsey would want. If Lady Dustin's hatred is higher than expected, she might want Jon Snow dead too, but I think not. And Mance might want this because Snow is still a Crow. But I don't think he would sacrifice all his freefolk at the Wall.

Mance knows how Jon reacts to hearing his sister is in trouble (he sees it as rs after sparring with Jon). 

 

Based on results, we have two motivations that are the most likely. 1) getting Jon to come to wf or 2) getting Jon usurped. 

 

Based on what mance knows about Jon, and what benefits mance, I feel confident that 1 is the correct answer. 

 

This is discussed towards the end of

 

[Aegon VII]

11 hours ago, bent branch said:

 

The author has written a letter that has some unknowns in it and requires the reader to recognize that everything in the letter (except for the Stannis/battle information) can be known by Ramsay. You have to be paying attention and you have to be able to intuit what non-POVs are seeing and experiencing.

You should know this comes off as very condescending. Which isn’t a good look when you’re wrong!

Quote

Therefore, I will leave you to believe what you want to believe, I will stay with my opinion that Ramsay wrote the letter, because I have never heard an even semi-good reason why it wasn't written by him.

Here ya go bud. A theory supporting mance writing it, and you can see his motivation in the link I posted in my previous response. 

 

 

[CAllDSmith]

46 minutes ago, Aegon VII said:

You should know this comes off as very condescending. Which isn’t a good look when you’re wrong!

Here ya go bud. A theory supporting mance writing it, and you can see his motivation in the link I posted in my previous response. 

 

 

Many very good points there. I never thought of the Rowan thing, and I also think there is some hidden code involving the word seven there. I think the best point about Abel/Mance is the climbing. The Broken Tower is unclimbable right now, so there's a fair chance if Mance gets up there he's golden. I honestly think that everyone but the Dustin's and Ryswells are guaranteed to be part of the Manderly-Glover-Reed backstab. 

[The Lord of the Crossing]

On 4/12/2019 at 1:06 PM, Shpati said:

Anyway... my question is why? Why would one write such a cryptic letter hoping Jon gets the details that these theories suggest? Why would they think that is a smart idea? What were they trying to get Jon to do? If their letter plan was a success, what would be the outcome and what would they gain?

The letter is not cryptic.  It's clear what the author wanted.  Ramsay was explicit.  He wanted fake Arya back to continue his political game and Reek.  The letter expected Jon to follow the instructions.  Ramsay gets fake Arya, Reek, the last remaining rebels, and leverage on the wildlings. 

On 4/13/2019 at 6:13 AM, rotting sea cow said:

I believe that the letter that arrived at Castle Black is different to the letter that Jon read.

That is a way to explain the oddities found in the letter, regardless who wrote it.

Btw. My brain tells me it was Ramsay but my nose insists it was Mance.

I can't deny the possibility of the letter having arrived and then the receiver forging a different letter.  But we have nothing to suggests that happened.  Nobody at the wall had any reason to want to start a war with the Boltons.  No sworn brother would want such a thing except Jon.  It goes against the mission of the Watch.

 

[Clegane'sPup]

16 minutes ago, The Lord of the Crossing said:

The letter is not cryptic. 

Perhaps cryptic is an incorrect descriptor.  The pink/bastard letter is ambiguous as in partially true and partially false.

19 minutes ago, The Lord of the Crossing said:

It's clear what the author wanted. 

Yes, the demands are forthright.

Quote

 

Your false king's friends are dead. Their heads upon the walls of Winterfell. Come see them, bastard. Your false king lied, and so did you. You told the world you burned the King-Beyond-the-Wall. Instead you sent him to Winterfell to steal my bride from me.

I will have my bride back. If you want Mance Rayder back, come and get him. I have him in a cage for all the north to see, proof of your lies. The cage is cold, but I have made him a warm cloak from the skins of the six whores who came with him to Winterfell.

I want my bride back. I want the false king's queen. I want his daughter and his red witch. I want this wildling princess. I want his little prince, the wildling babe. And I want my Reek. Send them to me, bastard, and I will not trouble you or your black crows. Keep them from me, and I will cut out your bastard's heart and eat it.

 

 

Lookie here Jon Snow, bastard of Winterfell, Lord Commander of the Night's Watch, I killed Stannis Baratheon, a traitor to the Lannister throne.    Give me Stannis' daughter, Stannis' wife and Stannis' red witch.

And I want this wildling princess and I want his little prince.

Mance Rayder has confessed that you, Lord Commander, sent him to WF to steal Jeyne who was granted to me by Lannister via Litterfinger so that I may be Lord of WF.

Give me what I want I will not cut out your bastard's heart and eat it.

36 minutes ago, The Lord of the Crossing said:

Nobody at the wall had any reason to want to start a war with the Boltons. 

Agree.

But there is a bit of hanky panky as early as A Feast for Crows.

A Feast for Crows - Cersei IV     "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."

[CAllDSmith]

1 hour ago, The Lord of the Crossing said:

he receiver forging a different letter.  But we have nothing to suggests that happened.  Nobody at the wall had any reason to want to start a war with the Boltons.  No sworn brother would want such a thing except Jon.  It goes against the mission of the Watch.

Half the people at the Wall are already at war with the Boltons. Melisandre who said: 

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?"

"All your questions shall be answered. Look to the skies, Lord Snow. And when you have your answers, send to me. Winter is almost upon us now. I am your only hope."

and has been seeing Jon in her fires. Who could probably guess what Jon would do (or had seen it.) and might well have worked with the coup to get Jon to die and be released from his vows so that Rh'hlor can bring him back. (Maybe she finally realized that seeing Jon Snow when she's looking for Azor Ahai means something.) Consider this: the mutineers decided it would be smart to murder Jon five feet from a giant, after half of Castle Black either agreed to go south with him or is a Queen's Man sworn to defend the people he just agreed to go south to defend and they all just saw them murder Jon and the mutineers seem to be expecting to get out alive. 

There are any number of people at the Wall who would want a large army of wildlings to go help Stannis who could know Mance is alive due to help from Melisandre. 

[Darth Sidious]

The northmen honor the watch and the last thing they would do is to drag a sworn commander into something so disgraceful as to involve the NW into their war.  Barbrey Dustin is not so lost that she would write such a letter to trick Jon Snow into what he tried to do.  Mance Rayder is an oathbreaker and a deserter but he atleast knows the value of keeping the wall defended.  I don't think he would do this.  

 

[CAllDSmith]

3 minutes ago, Great Oshiro said:

The northmen honor the watch and the last thing they would do is to drag a sworn commander into something so disgraceful as to involve the NW into their war.  Barbrey Dustin is not so lost that she would write such a letter to trick Jon Snow into what he tried to do.  Mance Rayder is an oathbreaker and a deserter but he atleast knows the value of keeping the wall defended.  I don't think he would do this.  

The bold does not line up with the way that the Boltons have treated the watch, or the way the Dustins, Ryswells and every other northern house treated the watch when Aemon sent letters saying that Mance was attacking the Wall. If Wyman Manderly knows about Robb's will (Galbart Glover and Maege Mormont have to be doing something with Arya in danger and the Boltons in power.) bringing Jon south, or having him let the wildlings down would make more sense. Again, I still have my eggs in the Melisandre plan basket. But there is no world in which Ramsay Bolton is alive that the Realms of Men are capable of stopping the Others. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

If it is Mance I can’t help but see maglinent intent on his part. He knows the majority of the Watch aren’t in favor of Jon’s open door policies, and most of the people who could reasonably be seen as succeeding Jon have shown to be no more inclined to them. If given the chance they’d cleanse the south side of the wall of the Wildlings, including the ones Jon let in.

Mallister, and Pyke different as they may be, stand on the same position in regards to the Wildlings; all of them are the enemy.  I see Marsh’s support being the deciding factor given he’s absorbed most if not all of the support Slynt had when running for LC-the builders and Stewards(which make up the majority of the watch), have shown to be Marsh’s core base.  And the only Marsh would see as qualified would be Mallister.  

How long could a peace be held out between the Wildlings and Black brothers with Mallister being at the helm? Not long probably. Like imagine this scenario; a spear wife was found to have killed a black brother accused of trying to rape her; a very delicate situation to which one wrong move could illicit a massive fight; could anyone see Mallister not just putting the woman(who he sees as subhuman) to death regardless of the evidence of assault? From the man I’ve read he is I don’t think so. 

 

[rotting sea cow]

10 hours ago, The Lord of the Crossing said:

I can't deny the possibility of the letter having arrived and then the receiver forging a different letter.  But we have nothing to suggests that happened. 

Clydas reaction to the letter is somewhat suspicious. Why was he so scared? Even if he/they didn't modify the letter, he certainly knew its contents.

10 hours ago, The Lord of the Crossing said:

Nobody at the wall had any reason to want to start a war with the Boltons.  No sworn brother would want such a thing except Jon.  It goes against the mission of the Watch.

Nobody indeed. But many have reasons to frame Jon as a traitor. 

For me, a lot of the language sounds similar to Allister Thorne.

[The Lord of the Crossing]

On 4/15/2019 at 4:30 AM, rotting sea cow said:

Clydas reaction to the letter is somewhat suspicious. Why was he so scared? Even if he/they didn't modify the letter, he certainly knew its contents.

Nobody indeed. But many have reasons to frame Jon as a traitor. 

For me, a lot of the language sounds similar to Allister Thorne.

Might be he opened it and took a peak.  He found out what Jon had been doing and correctly feared for the worst.  His commander had after all already gone too far to rescue his sister.  Who knows what Snow might do in response. 

It's not necessary to frame jon as a traitor because he is.  Jon made himself a traitor.  Clydas had no need to do that even if that was his goal.  He could have shown the letter to Bowen Marsh and the other officers.  I don't think he did because the assassination was spontaneous.  They didn't know the seriousness of what Jon had done until he gave his speech. 

Thorne is an honorable guy.  I don't think he would stoop to this level to do this.  He might be abrasive to Jon.  He's not very good at training.  But he is an honorable man.  He chose the right side during the rebellion and had the misfortune of losing to the criminals.  He got sent to the wall for losing the war and not for anything he did wrong. 

[CAllDSmith]

16 hours ago, The Lord of the Crossing said:

Thorne is an honorable guy.  I don't think he would stoop to this level to do this.  He might be abrasive to Jon.  He's not very good at training.  But he is an honorable man.  He chose the right side during the rebellion and had the misfortune of losing to the criminals.  He got sent to the wall for losing the war and not for anything he did wrong. 

Okay I already knew that you were okay with siding with unethical things for the sake of an argument from the moment you said Jon was a traitor, but at what point does a rapist, murderer, who taunts the laws of gods and men, plans mass murder, kin slaying, and deicide (This being Aerys) count as in the right? He's a king, not a god, who treats his subjects like toys. He's also not even the lawful king, by law that would be Maegor (son of Aerion)'s kin, the Blackfyres, or Vaella. Especially since he actively goes about blocking attempts at a Great Council 

[Clegane'sPup]

17 hours ago, The Lord of the Crossing said:

It's not necessary to frame jon as a traitor because he is.  Jon made himself a traitor. 

Depends where one stands. The English, Irish, Scottish and Welsh for many a year all had differing views on who was boss.

Westeros' Iron Throne declared Jon Snow, bastard of WF, LC of the NW at traitor.  

A Feast for Crows - Cersei IV     "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."/