James Fenimore Cooper XXII Posted November 12, 2020 Share Posted November 12, 2020 A topic from @Mrstrategy prompted me to ponder this question. Just what kind of transgression is Roose Bolton guilty of against Robb Stark? Please give me your opinion and make your case. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLastWolf Posted November 12, 2020 Share Posted November 12, 2020 Evilness Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alyn Oakenfist Posted November 12, 2020 Share Posted November 12, 2020 He's guilty of damn near everything Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeanF Posted November 12, 2020 Share Posted November 12, 2020 Treason. Robb is both Roose's King and his liege lord. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugorfonics Posted November 12, 2020 Share Posted November 12, 2020 Murder. He fucking stabbed him in the heart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Young Maester Posted November 12, 2020 Share Posted November 12, 2020 Both tbh. Robb trusted him as a bannermen and roose betrayed him. He also committed treason because he openly attacked the kings men and killed the king himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loose Bolt Posted November 12, 2020 Share Posted November 12, 2020 Actually Roose was a hero who killed/captured some rebel lords and a lot of other rebels. So he was not guilty of any crimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Lannister Posted November 12, 2020 Share Posted November 12, 2020 Taking advantage of a naive child. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winds of Winter blow cold Posted November 12, 2020 Share Posted November 12, 2020 What is the difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernie Mac Posted November 12, 2020 Share Posted November 12, 2020 14 hours ago, James Fenimore Cooper XXII said: A topic from @Mrstrategy prompted me to ponder this question. Just what kind of transgression is Roose Bolton guilty of against Robb Stark? Please give me your opinion and make your case. Thanks Betrayal. At the end of the day, Robb was a pretender than a fully fledged king. At least according to Robb's own brother "They north rode with Robb, bled with him, died for him. They have supped on grief and death, and now you come to offer them another serving. Do you blame them if they hang back? Forgive me, Your Grace, but some will look at you and see only another doomed pretender." Roose was not consulted about Robb becoming King and was hardly in a position to say no after the deed had been done. Nor did Robb's crown offer any of the normal signs of legitimacy we associate Kingship with. Robb was a warlord who could have been King had he been successful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugorfonics Posted November 12, 2020 Share Posted November 12, 2020 7 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said: Betrayal. At the end of the day, Robb was a pretender than a fully fledged king. Inconsequential semantics. Robb was a king, just like Robert the usurping pretender. 9 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said: At least according to Robb's own brother "They north rode with Robb, bled with him, died for him. They have supped on grief and death, and now you come to offer them another serving. Do you blame them if they hang back? Forgive me, Your Grace, but some will look at you and see only another doomed pretender." Jon just knew what words to say and not to say in front of king stannis. Before Robb was doomed Jon didnt call him a pretender. . "You've heard these tidings of your brother?" "Last night." Conwy and his charges had brought the news north with them, and the talk in the common room had been of little else. Jon was still not certain how he felt about it. Robb a king? The brother he'd played with, fought with, shared his first cup of wine with? But not mother's milk, no. So now Robb will sip summerwine from jeweled goblets, while I'm kneeling beside some stream sucking snowmelt from cupped hands. "Robb will make a good king," he said loyally. . 13 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said: Roose was not consulted about Robb becoming King and was hardly in a position to say no after the deed had been done. Meaningless. Hes not Pennsylvania 13 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said: Nor did Robb's crown offer any of the normal signs of legitimacy we associate Kingship with Ummm, yould prefer a sceptre? 14 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said: Robb was a warlord who could have been King had he been successful. I dont understand your rationale. Robb wasnt king because he was murdered while at war? So Balon and Renly werent kings either? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Peres Posted November 12, 2020 Share Posted November 12, 2020 14 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said: Roose was not consulted about Robb becoming King and was hardly in a position to say no after the deed had been done. Nor did Robb's crown offer any of the normal signs of legitimacy we associate Kingship with. Robb was a warlord who could have been King had he been successful. But Roose did acknowledge the title, and Robb as his king. “A strong castle, and well garrisoned, but His Grace shall have it, if I must kill every living soul within to make it so.” “His Grace King Robb is wed.” Bolton spit a prune pit into his hand and put it aside. “To a Westerling of the Crag. I am told her name is Jeyne. No doubt you know her, ser. Her father is your father’s bannerman.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davjos Posted November 13, 2020 Share Posted November 13, 2020 I’d say treason. He participated in a rebellion against the Iron Throne, which constitutes treason. I’d guess under the jurisdiction of the Iron Throne his murder of his liege Lord would constitute betrayal if were only looking at the RW. Under the jurisdiction of the (no longer existing) Kingdom of the North and Riverlands he committed treason by murdering the King while being their subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernie Mac Posted November 13, 2020 Share Posted November 13, 2020 1 hour ago, Hugorfonics said: Inconsequential semantics. Robb was a king, just like Robert the usurping pretender. No, nothing like Robert. Robert was recognized as king by other realms, one of the founding differences between monarchy and simply being a warlord Robert was succeeded by his heirs, Robb's death has not see that. Robb was not successful in his bid, much like Renly. Historians of Westeros are likely to put them in the pretender column than the Monarch column. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Leftwich Posted November 13, 2020 Share Posted November 13, 2020 Guilt of a 'crime' is of no consequence, since this is a book. Roose will get literary comeuppance, just like everyone else. Most characters of consequence that have met their end usually have done so via poetic justice related to their actions. I still believe that GRRM is of the Tom Stoppard school of writing, "The bad end unhappily, the good unluckily. That is what tragedy means." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aline de Gavrillac Posted November 13, 2020 Share Posted November 13, 2020 Betrayal. Tywin gave Roose permission to act against the Starks. What he did may be immoral and not according to custom but it was legal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugorfonics Posted November 13, 2020 Share Posted November 13, 2020 10 hours ago, Bernie Mac said: No, nothing like Robert. Robert was recognized as king by other realms, one of the founding differences between monarchy and simply being a warlord Robb was king of two realms and recognized by a third . "Don't scare me, Theon." "I'm Prince Theon now. We're both princes, Bran. Who would have dreamed it? But I've taken your castle, my prince." . Speaking of Greyjoy, only one realm acknowledged Balon as king, but every ironborn knows who the late king was 10 hours ago, Bernie Mac said: Robert was succeeded by his heirs, Robb's death has not see that. Robb was not successful in his bid, much like Renly. Historians of Westeros are likely to put them in the pretender column than the Monarch column. Id wait to see how the story pans out before we start thinking as historians instead of current event guys. But if I were to bet, Robbs siblings will inherit his kingdom . "The wolves will come again," said Jojen solemnly. "And how would you be knowing, boy?" "I dreamed it." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
broken one Posted November 13, 2020 Share Posted November 13, 2020 He is not guilty of anything. The old gods made him psychopath, so balme it on them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeanF Posted November 13, 2020 Share Posted November 13, 2020 The medievals viewed treason as including the murder of a lord by his vassal, a master by his servant, or a husband by his wife. So, it would certainly be treason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dalinar Posted November 13, 2020 Share Posted November 13, 2020 Arguement 1: Betrayal. If Joffrey is the King, and Robb rebelled against the Crown, Roose Bolton ultimately has to stay loyal to the crown. Hence he acted loyal to the crown and hence he was obligated to act that way and it was not treason. But he ultimately betrayed Robb. Arguement 2: Treason. There is no natural state of being King, nor is there an objective King. A King is a name given by people who are willingly following or accepting a person whom they choosed. The vasalls choosed or accepted a King, they can do it, and they only have to follow him. Hence Robb was the King and thus it was treason. Which arguement is right: Both. It is all semantics, and therefore there is no right or wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.