Jump to content
Anti-Stark

Fair Compensation for House Frey

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

That is clearly not the case. He knew of a plot against his brother the king and stayed silent. That guy only cares about duties when it benefits him.

"I did not keep silent," Stannis declared. "I brought my suspicions to Jon Arryn."

"Rather than your own brother?"

"My brother's regard for me was never more than dutiful," said Stannis. "From me, such accusations would have seemed peevish and self-serving, a means of placing myself first in the line of succession. I believed Robert would be more disposed to listen if the charges came from Lord Arryn, whom he loved."

Share this post


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

Nah bro. I just quoted and bolded it for you. Uno mas? 

eh?

1 minute ago, Hugorfonics said:

They did it on behalf of King Robert and the good lords they serve.

No, they did not. Cat asked them and they complied.

If the Mountain claimed to be working on the authority of Robert, without ever getting it, would that make his actions legal?

Why does Ned lie? If what Cat is doing is legal why does he feel the need to lie?

1 minute ago, Hugorfonics said:

Possibly. A Castellan, to my understanding, is acting boss. Thusly responsible for ensuring justice in the kings realm.

In the North, she has no authority in the Riverlands.

Fire and Blood has a similar situation, Cregan Stark needs to made Hand before he can sit in judgement of the likes of Lord Velaryon as his Lordship only grants him powers in the North, they don't extend outside of his lands.

1 minute ago, Hugorfonics said:

But thats irrelevant.

Explain why.

1 minute ago, Hugorfonics said:

 

Cat did not use her title to arrest Tyrion. She used the men and knights of Whent, Bracken and Frey (Well, tried to use Frey) to arrest Tyrion and the authority of Lord Robert for judgment.

She did not have the authority from Robert. Simply claiming the King gave you the authority does not make something legal. The king actually has to grant that person authority to act in their name.

Why do you think Ned lies to Robert about this?

1 minute ago, Hugorfonics said:

Course she does dude. Scars on her hand and the knife that Petyr called Lannister, without any objection from the Kings master of whisperers.

How is that evidence that Tyron did it?

1 minute ago, Hugorfonics said:

Again; I just did, see above. But once more for good luck? 

eh?

1 minute ago, Hugorfonics said:

 

 

Idk, maybe because hes a fucking moran.

lol it's spelt moron. People in glass houses...

1 minute ago, Hugorfonics said:

 

Who knows? Lying is easy when it comes to Neds family, hes been lying for Lyanna since she died (or not killing children while Theons in the corner like Reek, or saying look in a mans eyes if he doesnt deserve death the dont kill them, and then kills the crow for the crime of running away from the other)

 

So you think Ned lied for fun? There was no reason for it?

Share this post


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

"I did not keep silent," Stannis declared. "I brought my suspicions to Jon Arryn."

"Rather than your own brother?"

"My brother's regard for me was never more than dutiful," said Stannis. "From me, such accusations would have seemed peevish and self-serving, a means of placing myself first in the line of succession. I believed Robert would be more disposed to listen if the charges came from Lord Arryn, whom he loved."

He didn't keep silent? When did he tell Robert that he believed he was being cuckolded and that the Lannisters had killed Jon Arryn?

My copy of the books are missing those parts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

No, they did not. Cat asked them and they complied.

If the Mountain claimed to be working on the authority of Robert, without ever getting it, would that make his actions legal?

Explain why.

Cat asked them on behalf of. "King Robert and the good lords you serve". Not once did she say on behalf of Stark, Arryn, or even Tully. 

About the Mountain, Id normally say yes because knights are sworn to defend the innocent, however your example from F&B makes me think he only has power in the West. Possibly because hes a land owner?

19 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

She did not have the authority from Robert. Simply claiming the King gave you the authority does not make something legal. The king actually has to grant that person authority to act in their name.

Thats why she went to the Vale, to seek Lord Roberts authority. And that was done legally as well, asking Brynden politely if they can pass the gate. 

The king has to grant authority to Lord Arryn of the Vale?

23 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

How is that evidence that Tyron did it?

The word of a member on the SC without disapprovel from the adjacent master of whisperers all witnessed by a knight.

What more evidence do you want? Forensic?

26 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

So you think Ned lied for fun? There was no reason for it?

Yea maybe. Maybe funs the reason? I knew he didnt really trust Petyr, gotta have fun though.

How the hell does Ned know what happened x miles away? Hes Hand, and used it. Who wouldn't?

27 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

He didn't keep silent? When did he tell Robert that he believed he was being cuckolded and that the Lannisters had killed Jon Arryn?

When should he have? He thought he was about to get murdererd and had to run. Or do you suggest sending a raven to Pycelle?

Share this post


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

Cat asked them on behalf of. "King Robert and the good lords you serve". Not once did she say on behalf of Stark, Arryn, or even Tully. 

Which in itself is meaningless. She does not have the King's permission, she does not even have their Lord's permission. She is acting without any authority.

That is what people are arguing here, Cat's actual authority. She had none.

  • That is why the King calls it an abduction rather than an arrest
  • That is why Ned feels the need to lie to the king about the situation
1 minute ago, Hugorfonics said:

About the Mountain, Id normally say yes because knights are sworn to defend the innocent, however your example from F&B makes me think he only has power in the West. Possibly because hes a land owner?

Lord and  landed knights only have power in their own lands, they don't have power outside of them.

Not to be rude, but where do you get your information from?

1 minute ago, Hugorfonics said:

Thats why she went to the Vale, to seek Lord Roberts authority.

No it was not. Robert is in Kings Landing, which is closer to the Inn than the Eyrie is, and clearly less dangerous as well.

1 minute ago, Hugorfonics said:

 

And that was done legally as well, asking Brynden politely if they can pass the gate. 

eh? What are you going on about now?

1 minute ago, Hugorfonics said:

The king has to grant authority to Lord Arryn of the Vale?

No idea what nonsense you are trying to start now.

Cat abducted Tyrion in the Riverlands. The powers of the Lord of the Vale do not extend to the Riverlands.

1 minute ago, Hugorfonics said:

The word of a member on the SC without disapprovel from the adjacent master of whisperers all witnessed by a knight.

Littlefinger is in Kings Landing, Robert is in Kings Landing, Cat is closer to Kings Landing than she is the Eyrie.

 

1 minute ago, Hugorfonics said:

What more evidence do you want? Forensic?

lol don't get irate to me because you've made a flawed argument.

Cat was just in Kings Landing, her husband is still in Kings Landing. Why was this evidence not presented to the King?

Why is Ned lying to the King and stating that he ordered Cat to arrest Tyrion?

1 minute ago, Hugorfonics said:

Yea maybe. Maybe funs the reason? I knew he didnt really trust Petyr, gotta have fun though.

So your saying the evidence was not trustworthy? Fair enough.

1 minute ago, Hugorfonics said:

How the hell does Ned know what happened x miles away? Hes Hand, and used it. Who wouldn't?

Calm down dude. I'm just asking why you think Ned felt the need to lie if Cat's actions were legal?

1 minute ago, Hugorfonics said:

When should he have?

eh? You are moving the goalposts now.

You claimed Stannis was the "living embodiment of duty" when clearly that is not the case, he failed his duty to his King.

 

1 minute ago, Hugorfonics said:

 

He thought he was about to get murdererd and had to run.

Can you quote Stannis about that? Stannis never makes no such claim and he did not run, he was still in Kings Landing for some time after Jon Arryn's funeral. Cersei was not even in the city when Jon died and Robert left Kings Landing before Stannis did. Stannis said nothing. Failed in his duty.

Though that is hardly the point, there are ravens, he could have informed the new Hand about his suspicions and the safety of the king, he could have informed Robert via raven or messenger from Dragonstone. He could have informed his younger brother who did not like or trust the Lannisters.

Stannis did nothing, he failed in his duty.

1 minute ago, Hugorfonics said:

 

Or do you suggest sending a raven to Pycelle?

Yes. Or Ned at Wintefell, or Renly at Storm's End, or send a messenger directly to the King.

There was many ways that Stannis could have tried warning the King, some, maybe all may have failed but he attempted nothing. He abandoned his duty.

You making excuses for him will never change that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Yes. Or Ned at Wintefell, or Renly at Storm's End, or send a messenger directly to the King.

There was many ways that Stannis could have tried warning the King, some, maybe all may have failed but he attempted nothing. He abandoned his duty.

 You making excuses for him will never change that.

This is true. Hell even in the improbable event in that none of the people you’ve listed could be contacted by Stannis, he still needs to tell Robert.

The idea of his life being put in endanger by doing so isn’t an excuse. Imagine how’d Stannis would react if he found out one of his vassals had kept silent on the fact his wife had cuckholded him with her own Uncle and that Sereen is the product of the Union? Would Stannis excuse said vassal because the vassal cared more about his own life than doing his duty to his king? I don’t think so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/13/2019 at 12:24 AM, Tyrion1991 said:

 

The problem is that there isn’t a formal set of laws in Westeros. People just do whatever they want and the only firm rule is “trial by combat!!!!”. It’s quite farcical compared to actual medieval courts. Really, if Westeros is War of the Roses then you are getting well into the Renaissance.

So you can’t say, well we’ll send some royal judges to arrest the Freys, take testimony, put them to a trial by jury and then sentence them to hang after a long duration. Just not as melodramatic as Uncat murdering them at a Wedding.

There are laws and Ned Stark actually does exactly what you say can't happen. He sends Berric Dondarrion out to arrest Gregor Clegane to put him on trial. There's also Tyrions trials as well. Trial by combat is just another way of trying to prove innocence (which was actually real in Germanic law). People don't just "do whatever they want" you're cherry picking things to make your argument fit. The only reason the Freys got away with it was because it was sanctioned by Tywin and carried out against a rebel army.

Share this post


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

There are laws and Ned Stark actually does exactly what you say can't happen.

There are laws during peace time, not so much when there is a civil war and parts of the realm are in open rebellion.

Expecting a Crown you have rebelled against to punish people for fighting against you is odd.

1 hour ago, KingMudd said:

 

The only reason the Freys got away with it was because it was sanctioned by Tywin and carried out against a rebel army.

Well yeah, this is pretty frequent right? Had Robb been victorious I doubt there would have been any blowback on the Northern soldiers raping, pillaging and sacking settlements in the Riverlands. His men are likely given amnesty for most of the crap they were doing.  Laws tend to be ignored during wars.

The Battle at the Twins will have no blowback, the Red Wedding inside may well do, breaking customs held dear by Religious institutions may see blowback whether the current Government likes it or not.

Share this post


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

There are laws and Ned Stark actually does exactly what you say can't happen. He sends Berric Dondarrion out to arrest Gregor Clegane to put him on trial. There's also Tyrions trials as well. Trial by combat is just another way of trying to prove innocence (which was actually real in Germanic law). People don't just "do whatever they want" you're cherry picking things to make your argument fit. The only reason the Freys got away with it was because it was sanctioned by Tywin and carried out against a rebel army.

 

Not really. Beric is a random Lord who has suddenly been given a military command to get somebody. It’s not the same as having a formal position like a Justice of the Peace responsible for overseeing Common Law within a given area. You don’t have the King shout “go get this bad man!” as is presented.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_of_the_peace 

Such arbitrary and informal actions aren’t really laws. Tyrion’s trial is very consciously a farce. Plus, it’s frankly dramatic license from George because we don’t see any suggestion it’s common practice. If they just cut Tyrion’s head off like every other character then that would be it for him then.

The absence of the Rule of Law is a major problem with Westeros. Most medieval kingdoms had much more developed and advanced systems in place. What we are shown is an absurdly primitive system.

Share this post


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

There are laws during peace time, not so much when there is a civil war and parts of the realm are in open rebellion.

Expecting a Crown you have rebelled against to punish people for fighting against you is odd.

Well yeah, this is pretty frequent right? Had Robb been victorious I doubt there would have been any blowback on the Northern soldiers raping, pillaging and sacking settlements in the Riverlands. His men are likely given amnesty for most of the crap they were doing.  Laws tend to be ignored during wars.

The Battle at the Twins will have no blowback, the Red Wedding inside may well do, breaking customs held dear by Religious institutions may see blowback whether the current Government likes it or not.

Yeah I agree, you pretty much said the same as me, not sure why you seem to think we have differeing views.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/16/2019 at 4:48 PM, The Hoare said:

She didn't arrested him in Eddard's name. She's not in the North and she never asked permission from her father.

And yet all the retainers in the Inn answer her call.  She accuses him of attempted murder and they all respond to that.  They must know something you don't.

Without any accusation, without any scars on her hands to convince the bystanders of the case she made you might be able to call it kidnapping but it's an arrest and she publicly explains the grounds for the arrest - attempted murder - before ordering them to take him into custody.

On 6/16/2019 at 4:48 PM, The Hoare said:

That's why King Robert consider it a kidnapping, because that's what it was.

Robert considered it a problem he didn't want to have to face up to and like all his problems he just wanted it to go away as soon as possible.  He didn't even listen to Ned's attempted explanation as to why Catelyn took Tyrion, he just brushed it aside.

Robert's disinterest in bothering with troublesome matters of justice as with all troubling matters of kingship is not a compelling legal argument, it's an argument for his negligence or incompetence.

On 6/16/2019 at 4:48 PM, The Hoare said:

In general, in a medieval society a noble couldn't abduct another noble without consent from a higher party. Really, the kidnapping just becomes somewhat lawful when Ned lies about his order, which is pretty obvious that he did it only to protect Cat.

She arrested him in Robert's name and explained the reason for the arrest.  That's fairly routine behavior for dealing with criminals.  The only rub is of course that Tyrion is innocent but she arrests him pending trial, arrest and trial being equally parts of the system of justice.

No one can abduct anyone legally under any circumstances so let's not confuse an arbitrary seizure of an individual - say, Lady Hornwood by Ramsay Bolton - with the arrest of a criminal suspect.

On 6/16/2019 at 5:37 PM, Bernie Mac said:

The King states that Cat was in the wrong, he is the law.

Well, sort of.  The king is supposed to be the apex of the legal system and the ultimate guarantor and arbiter of justice but nothing stops a king doing a shitty job of that or completely ignoring the law if he finds it inconvenient or too troublesome to follow.  I've stated my opinion on Robert's actions above and it's not that Cat is wrong to arrest a man accused of murder, it's that he doesn't want to have to deal with a problem. 

He is not remotely interested in what Ned has to say and is probably completely unaware that Tyrion is accused of attempting to kill Ned's son.  If he is aware then his response is even more negligent because he does absolutely nothing to try and determine the facts and to see justice done. 

So it's nothing to do with the law or justice, it's all about Robert waving away a problem so he can get on with the next banquet or hunt or affair.

On 6/16/2019 at 5:37 PM, Bernie Mac said:

Ned feels the need to lie about his wife, clearly Ned did not think she was in the right or honourable Ned would never have lied to his King.

I don't think so.  Ned is caught unawares as this is not what he and Cat had planned.  He is attempting to regain control of the situation by owning the arrest and explaining what grounds Catelyn had for apprehending Tyrion, hoping to be able to appeal to deal with the situation with Robert directly.  However it's something Robert does not care to hear and buggers off hunting hoping the problem will have gone away by the time he gets back.

On 6/16/2019 at 5:37 PM, Bernie Mac said:

She fucked up. Had she brought Tyrion to her father or to Kings Landing she'd have a case, instead she imprisoned someone she had no right to imprison.

Oh, she had a right to arrest him.  He should have been detained in comfort rather than the sky cell at the Eyrie but that is on Lysa, not Cat.

She took him to the Eyrie as otherwise he would have been seized by force.  Quite why Lannister forces would have been able to overtake her if she headed for Winterfell or Riverrun is a plot device but she wanted to gain Lysa's evidence at the same time.

Not taking him to KL is borne out by Robert's approach to the whole incident which is to not give a shit about justice and hope it all goes away.  She needs Lysa's evidence to be able to force even a drunken oaf like Robert to actually uphold the laws he is supposed to care about and dispense justice even when it's difficult.

On 6/16/2019 at 5:37 PM, Bernie Mac said:

I have no idea why you are bringing this up, she never does that. We have the scene, at no point does she arrest Tyrion in her husband's name. Ned lied about that. The fact that Ned felt the need to lie about this should make it pretty obvious that Cat was in the wrong.

Well if it wasn't clear: the point is that Cat is invested with authority due to Ned's appointment as Hand of the King.  She is now his regent in the North and has full plenipotentiary powers to exercise justice in his stead, powers delegated by Robert to Ned and by Ned to her.  This is the matter of whether she has any legal right to make arrests and exercise authority.

It's true that she is in the Riverlands rather than the North and the men around are not her oathsmen and so are not bound to obey her.  But they are her father's oathsmen which makes an appeal to his retainers from one of his blood (and touching an attempted murder of his grandson) as good as a command.  Only the Freys demure (as if the author was trying to tell us something about them).  For the rest Cat's commands are as good as they would be at Winterfell and only Hoster, Edmure or their own liege lords could intervene or countermand them.

The laws are the same throughout the realm and the resident nobility enforce them.  Either the Lady / Lord of the lands the inn is in or some representative of them is summoned to conduct the arrest or someone acts in their place: in this case a daughter of Hoster Tully arrests him and cites King Robert as her ultimate authority.

Ned is deflecting Robert's ire on to himself as he is at hand and can better manage Robert if Robert is focused on him.  As he is present he can explain things rather than having Cat's actions a mystery and some arbitrary inexplicable brigandage.  This is about managing Robert not about legal arguments.  But stuff like that is too hard for Robert to face up to so he sticks his fingers in his ears, wallops Cersei, curse Ned and goes hunting.

On 6/16/2019 at 5:37 PM, Bernie Mac said:

The usually sensible and intelligent Cat was put on the spot and acted irrationally. This was not a planned move, and had Tyrion not noticed her nothing likely would have happened. She overreacted to being spotted thousands of miles from where she was meant to be and made sure the entire realm knew she was not in the North (something she was trying to keep a secret).

It's not irrational though, it's a deliberate and carefully reasoned decision though one that had to be made quickly.

What she feared was that Tyrion would alert the twins to her secret visit and plot or even strike against Ned with him all unaware of her visit being discovered, the sort of mayhem he might accomplish being clear in her mind with the attack on Bran, to say nothing of what he might achieve in cahoots with his siblings.  What she hoped was to forestall that danger to Ned and neutralize Tyrion's threat by taking him out of play and that by travelling to the Eyrie she would obtain useful evidence from Lysa against the Lannisters concerning the murder of Jon Arryn to supplement her (false and planted) evidence against Tyrion for the attack on Bran.

On 6/16/2019 at 5:37 PM, Bernie Mac said:

Why is that not clear to King Robert or Ned, the Hand?

Does Robert even know what Tyrion is accused of?  "Damn her reasons" is his response to Ned's attempt to explain.  Robert's response is everything to do with being presented with a problem he doesn't want to deal with and overruling her without any interest in knowing what is happening.  Equally does Ned think it "illegal" or inopportune? Ned's response is all about the fact that it is too soon and that they do not have the evidence - or are assured that Robert will want to know and act on the truth - and to do with crisis management and dealing with Robert directly, an appeal to Nedbert.  Let's not forget that Ned's men were killed around him and his own leg shattered, that he was unconscious for days and that he is too weak to get out of bed when Robert comes to see him: he's thinking on his feet and trying to find the best way of getting Robert out of Cersei's clutches and to counter for the days that Cersei has had to whisper in his ear so he owns Cat's action and tries to explain it.

On 6/16/2019 at 5:37 PM, Bernie Mac said:

Wives of Lords do not. If you can name another incidence in the series of this happening Id' love to read it.

You say its clear that this is how the system works, any other examples of this?

The story doesn't really need to give us didactic examples outside the plot but if a widow can exercise power as a regent for her son (Cersei) or a wife act as a regent for her husband (Catelyn) then it follows that in his absence (temporary or permanent) a wife can wield her husband's authority.  Selyse acting in Stannis's name at The Wall for example.

If you want an example of a noblewoman seizing someone then take Lady Tarbeck capturing Stafford Lannister in retaliation for Tytos Lannister detaining her husband.  Of course that incident was a genuine kidnapping, was completely illegal and was purely designed to secure a bargaining chip but no one disputed her authority as a mere "wife" rather than a surrogate authority for her husband.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

Robert's disinterest in bothering with troublesome matters of justice as with all troubling matters of kingship is not a compelling legal argument, it's an argument for his negligence or incompetence.

Robert is the king. If he says it was a abudction, then it was a abudction. It would be even if Tyrion had killed Bran in front of the entire realm.

Robert is the law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/15/2019 at 1:37 AM, Impbread said:

The wiki: Frey men kill Greywind but not before he is released by Reynald. Greywinds crowned head is sewn onto Robb’s corpse as a final insult to the Starks.

I agree. Dany also has a vision of a King with a Wolf's head in the House of the Undying. I also really can't see what the Freys would gain from lying about desecrating Robb's corpse - they are despised enough as it is - or what Greywind being alive would add to the remainder of the story.

On topic, I honestly don't think there was any "fair" compensation for the Freys. Certainly none that Walder would accept. Edmure, as Lord Paramount of the Riverlands was probably the closest you could get. After all, Robb wasn't King when the initial agreement was made. He was merely heir to the North.

The biggest problem is that Robb had already lost the war and was heading home. He could've promised anything but he was in no position to actually deliver it. There was no motive for Walder to swear fealty to a guy who was abandoning the Riverlands to the Tyrells and Lannisters anyway. Plus, lets not forget that Roose, Walder's son in law, would've been dead if Robb had made it back North.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/9/2019 at 7:03 PM, Anti-Stark said:

There is already a poll asking whether the red wedding was justified.  I want to do something different and instead ask what you feel is fair compensation to House Frey for Robb's betrayal.

Be fair-minded about this.  Even the most devout Stark supporter cannot excuse what Robb Stark did to the Freys.  He dragged them into a war.  I will add that it was a stupid war.  The Starks chose to light the fuse for no better reason than to find the person who tried to kill ONE LITTLE BOY.  The Freys did not start this war.  Robb Stark arrived at their doorstep and gave them a bitter choice.  Lord Walder Frey did what any shrewd man would do.  He can't avoid getting mixed up in this war.  He did what any smart man would do and negotiated a deal.  

What do  you consider is fair payment from the Starks to the Freys after Robb broke his oath?

How can you expect the replies in this thread to be fair-minded towards the Freys when you haven't been fair-minded towards the Starks in your opening post?  Jaime didn't simply try to kill ONE LITTLE BOY, he violated guest right and the little boy he pushed out of a high window was the son of the lord who was sheltering him.

From the wiki:

"When invoked, neither the guest nor the host can harm the other for the length of the guest's stay.  For either to do so would be to break a sacred covenant that is believed to invoke the wrath of the gods. both old and new. Even robber lords and wreckers are bound by the ancient laws of hospitality."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/16/2019 at 6:24 PM, Bernie Mac said:

Which in itself is meaningless. She does not have the King's permission, she does not even have their Lord's permission. She is acting without any authority.

That is what people are arguing here, Cat's actual authority. She had none.

  • That is why the King calls it an abduction rather than an arrest
  • That is why Ned feels the need to lie to the king about the situation

Lord and  landed knights only have power in their own lands, they don't have power outside of them.

Not to be rude, but where do you get your information from?

No it was not. Robert is in Kings Landing, which is closer to the Inn than the Eyrie is, and clearly less dangerous as well.

eh? What are you going on about now?

No idea what nonsense you are trying to start now.

Cat abducted Tyrion in the Riverlands. The powers of the Lord of the Vale do not extend to the Riverlands.

Littlefinger is in Kings Landing, Robert is in Kings Landing, Cat is closer to Kings Landing than she is the Eyrie.

 

lol don't get irate to me because you've made a flawed argument.

Cat was just in Kings Landing, her husband is still in Kings Landing. Why was this evidence not presented to the King?

Why is Ned lying to the King and stating that he ordered Cat to arrest Tyrion?

So your saying the evidence was not trustworthy? Fair enough.

Calm down dude. I'm just asking why you think Ned felt the need to lie if Cat's actions were legal?

eh? You are moving the goalposts now.

You claimed Stannis was the "living embodiment of duty" when clearly that is not the case, he failed his duty to his King.

 

Can you quote Stannis about that? Stannis never makes no such claim and he did not run, he was still in Kings Landing for some time after Jon Arryn's funeral. Cersei was not even in the city when Jon died and Robert left Kings Landing before Stannis did. Stannis said nothing. Failed in his duty.

Though that is hardly the point, there are ravens, he could have informed the new Hand about his suspicions and the safety of the king, he could have informed Robert via raven or messenger from Dragonstone. He could have informed his younger brother who did not like or trust the Lannisters.

Stannis did nothing, he failed in his duty.

Yes. Or Ned at Wintefell, or Renly at Storm's End, or send a messenger directly to the King.

There was many ways that Stannis could have tried warning the King, some, maybe all may have failed but he attempted nothing. He abandoned his duty.

You making excuses for him will never change that.

Cats father was the lord paramount of the Riverlands. I would say she has his permission. She arrested him in the RL. Totally legal.

Share this post


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

. I would say she has his permission

Do you have the quote?

As far as I know Hoster didn't knew she would suddenly kidnapp Tyrion. Not even Cat thought about kidnapping him until he recognized her

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that the vast majority of the men at arms at the inn did what Cat told them to do supports the notion that what she was acting within her “rights” as Lady of Wintefell, wife of the Hand, daughter of the Lord Paramount of the Riverlands. If the men had felt there was anything off in the request they wouldn’t have done it, especially considering it was a woman giving the order.  

Share this post


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

The fact that the vast majority of the men at arms at the inn did what Cat told them to do supports the notion that what she was acting within her “rights” as Lady of Wintefell, wife of the Hand, daughter of the Lord Paramount of the Riverlands. If the men had felt there was anything off in the request they wouldn’t have done it, especially considering it was a woman giving the order.  

My thoughts exactly. Thank you for saving me the time of typing it out.

Share this post


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

Do you have the quote?

As far as I know Hoster didn't knew she would suddenly kidnapp Tyrion. Not even Cat thought about kidnapping him until he recognized her

There is no quote. I am just inferring that Hoster would back her play just as Ned did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, The Hoare said:

Robert is the king. If he says it was a abudction, then it was a abudction. It would be even if Tyrion had killed Bran in front of the entire realm.

Robert is the law.

If he had killed Bran in front of the entire realm Robert would not have called it an abduction. Ice would be taking the Imps head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×