Mance Rayder and Jon Snow violated guest rights

[Targaryeninkingslanding]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Within the feudal framework of the story Mance does act as Jon Snow's representative and sworn sword. His lord and master - Jon - is thus responsible for his actions, like Tywin is for Gregor's, say, or Ned owned the actions of Catelyn when he declared she arrested Tyrion on his orders.

And Jon owns Mance's actions, too, when the Pink Letter arrives. He knows that he gambled when he sent out Mance ... and he lost and now he has to answer to what his people did. He could have feigned ignorance, he could have claimed Ramsay was just lying and what Mance did had nothing to do with him ... but he did not.

yeah your right, that's a fair cop.

[Quoth the raven,]

It was an egregious breach of guest rights.  Mance Rayder and the wildlings didn't openly assault the Boltons.  Neither did they sneak in unnoticed and taken Jeyne.  They entered pretending to have no hostile intentions. The host allowed them in and sheltered them.  They enjoyed the shelter, food, and hospitality of the host.  Then they murdered the servants of the host.  It was an egregious violation of guest rights.  

Mance Rayder was ordered by his commanding officer to do the mission.  Jon was that commander.  Both men are guilty of breaking the custom of guest rights.

[Daeron the Daring]

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

They were wedding guests, like everybody else. Although, of course, the guest right thingy is something for 'actual people', i.e. noblemen who have the right to feud and war, not smallfolk who are bound to serve their betters rather than fight in their own right.

In that sense, Mance and his ladies aren't 'guests' of Roose, just as Tom isn't the guest of Emmon and Genna ... but then, it is quite clear, for instance, that Dunk & Egg are guests of Rohanne Webber when they show up at Coldmoat, just as they are later guests of Lord Ambrose Butterwell at Whitewalls, etc.

As you said, guest right is for nobility, not commoners or wildlings.

And they weren't guests. I won't give you the quote, but Abel offered his services as a bard, and his spearwives became washerwomans to be allowed to remain in Winterfell. 

Not to mention that Jon can't be involved into the murder of the people at Winterfell. Just as Tywin did not violate guest rights, neither did Jon, altough Tywin exactly knew the consequences.

[SeanF]

11 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

They were wedding guests, like everybody else. Although, of course, the guest right thingy is something for 'actual people', i.e. noblemen who have the right to feud and war, not smallfolk who are bound to serve their betters rather than fight in their own right.

In that sense, Mance and his ladies aren't 'guests' of Roose, just as Tom isn't the guest of Emmon and Genna ... but then, it is quite clear, for instance, that Dunk & Egg are guests of Rohanne Webber when they show up at Coldmoat, just as they are later guests of Lord Ambrose Butterwell at Whitewalls, etc.

It is also a ruse de guerre, but it is also a breach of trust/guest right. After all, the ruse only can work if you worm your way into the trust of the host. Tom will betray (and possibly even slay) Emmon and Genna, just as Mance and his ladies betrayed Roose and Ramsay.

That doesn't seem to be the case. 'Arya' can run away, of course, but she was wedded and bedded to Ramsay Bolton in front of witnesses. This is a legal marriage and she may not be able to take another husband as long as Ramsay lives ... which micht be an academic question in the books, but in the case of Sansa Stark it is not so academic. If Alayne Stone were to marry before her true identity is revealed or they later just operate under the assumption that her first husband is dead/will never return then Tyrion might later be able to challenge the validity of any later marriage Sansa might make, calling into question even the true birth of whatever children she might have.

 

1. I'll give another example.  The spies that Tyrion sent to free Jaime from Riverrun.  They were executed as spies, upon discovery, but no one raised the issue of beach of guest right. 

2. I'm pretty sure that if Tyrion turned up before Stark supporters in either the North or the Vale, claiming to be Sansa's husband, they'd just gut him. Ditto if Ramsay turned up at the Wall, demanding the return of fArya.

[Lord Varys]

9 hours ago, Daeron the Daring said:

As you said, guest right is for nobility, not commoners or wildlings.

And they weren't guests. I won't give you the quote, but Abel offered his services as a bard, and his spearwives became washerwomans to be allowed to remain in Winterfell. 

Not to mention that Jon can't be involved into the murder of the people at Winterfell. Just as Tywin did not violate guest rights, neither did Jon, altough Tywin exactly knew the consequences.

Guest right would be something that is extended to and demanded by 'real people', i.e. noblemen ... but that doesn't mean that what Mance and his women did wasn't pretty much the same as breaking guest right even if it isn't framed in such terms.

The idea that you can enter the service of a lord in some capacity, eat his food, drink his wine ... and then murder his guests and abduct his wife or daughter-in-law isn't exactly well-founded within the framework of this society.

Mance and his women deserve the noose or worse for what they did ... that isn't framed as hideous betrayal is that servants/retainers aren't exactly treated with the same grace/respect as noblemen of similar or equal rank.

Jon certainly didn't break guest right ... but Mance acted as his man and thus Jon is responsible for what Mance did. Which is why Ramsay actually is justified in the Pink Letter insofar as his general stance towards Jon Snow is concerned. His tone might be a little bit extreme, but Mance did attack House Bolton on Jon's behalf and thus Jon has to answer for this.

4 hours ago, SeanF said:

1. I'll give another example.  The spies that Tyrion sent to free Jaime from Riverrun.  They were executed as spies, upon discovery, but no one raised the issue of beach of guest right.

Yes, of course, because those weren't people in their own right. They were acting on behalf of another. But the crime remains the same.

4 hours ago, SeanF said:

2. I'm pretty sure that if Tyrion turned up before Stark supporters in either the North or the Vale, claiming to be Sansa's husband, they'd just gut him. Ditto if Ramsay turned up at the Wall, demanding the return of fArya.

That would depend on the strength they have to make their voices heard.

[SeanF]

9 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Guest right would be something that is extended to and demanded by 'real people', i.e. noblemen ... but that doesn't mean that what Mance and his women did wasn't pretty much the same as breaking guest right even if it isn't framed in such terms.

The idea that you can enter the service of a lord in some capacity, eat his food, drink his wine ... and then murder his guests and abduct his wife or daughter-in-law isn't exactly well-founded within the framework of this society.

Mance and his women deserve the noose or worse for what they did ... that isn't framed as hideous betrayal is that servants/retainers aren't exactly treated with the same grace/respect as noblemen of similar or equal rank.

Jon certainly didn't break guest right ... but Mance acted as his man and thus Jon is responsible for what Mance did. Which is why Ramsay actually is justified in the Pink Letter insofar as his general stance towards Jon Snow is concerned. His tone might be a little bit extreme, but Mance did attack House Bolton on Jon's behalf and thus Jon has to answer for this.

Yes, of course, because those weren't people in their own right. They were acting on behalf of another. But the crime remains the same.

That would depend on the strength they have to make their voices heard.

The Boltons' crimes are of a far graver order;  mass murder of their fellow soldiers, regicide,, treason, rape, etc.  And, they must answer for such.

[Lord Varys]

5 minutes ago, SeanF said:

The Boltons' crimes are of a far graver order;  mass murder of their fellow soldiers, regicide,, treason, rape, etc.  And, they must answer for such.

Of course, but it doesn't fall to Jon Snow to do this. He is the Lord Commander of the Night's Watch. It's like saying Maester Aemon should have poisoned Benjen's or Jon's tea to avenge his own house on House Stark for their transgressions during the Rebellion, etc.

[SeanF]

Just now, Lord Varys said:

Of course, but it doesn't fall to Jon Snow to do this. He is the Lord Commander of the Night's Watch. It's like saying Maester Aemon should have poisoned Benjen's or Jon's tea to avenge his own house on House Stark for their transgressions during the Rebellion, etc.

Times change.  This is a society where nothing that we would regard as the rule of law exists.  In such a world, it's pretty well open to any adult with a weapon to enforce their society's codes of honour.

[Universal Sword Donor]

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Of course, but it doesn't fall to Jon Snow to do this. He is the Lord Commander of the Night's Watch. It's like saying Maester Aemon should have poisoned Benjen's or Jon's tea to avenge his own house on House Stark for their transgressions during the Rebellion, etc.

He's also not punishing the Boltons for it. He's asking Mance to get his sister. Insofar as the Pink Letter is concerned, it's completely over the top, especially  considering that Jon can't provide like 2/3 of what Ramsay demands, even if he did have fArya.

[Lord Varys]

12 minutes ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

He's also not punishing the Boltons for it. He's asking Mance to get his sister. Insofar as the Pink Letter is concerned, it's completely over the top, especially  considering that Jon can't provide like 2/3 of what Ramsay demands, even if he did have fArya.

With Robb starting a rebellion and crowning himself king after his father is arrested and executed the Bolton reaction to the Winterfell incident isn't all that extreme. Keep in mind that with 'Arya' the Boltons lost their main instrument to control the Northmen. They need her back desperately, regardless what's going on with Stannis. Even if they crushed him, they need the Stark girl to keep the Northmen in line.

Presumably, Ramsay doesn't know where Theon and 'Arya' are but the latter might arrive at Castle Black shortly after the Pink Letter, possibly even before Jon could draft a response to the Pink Letter assuming he ever considered doing that.

The Boltons captured Mance and/or some of his women, and it is from them that Ramsay learned that Mance and the women came to Winterfell to steal away Ramsay's wife. Mance acted on Jon's behalf in all of that, and nobody in this world makes fine distinctions between the actions of a sworn man and his master. That is why Ned loathes all of House Lannister for Jaime and Tywin's actions ... it is also the reason why Tywin is loathed by Ned and the Martells for Gregor's and Amory's actions, why the Freys are collectively loathed for the Red Wedding regardless whether they are guilty or not, etc.

This is a world of personal loyalty and responsibility. The actions of your sworn men reflect back on you, just as your actions/commands reflect back on them. And Mance did act as Jon's sworn man.

10 hours ago, SeanF said:

Times change.  This is a society where nothing that we would regard as the rule of law exists.  In such a world, it's pretty well open to any adult with a weapon to enforce their society's codes of honour.

We are not at that point yet. Else people would celebrate Jaime for murdering the Mad King ... or nobody would have assassinated Jon Snow after what he did in the wake of the Pink Letter. And the point of the story is likely not that you have to be Littlefinger to survive ... or that everybody will turn into Littlefinger to survive.

I doubt that we'll reach a point where nobody will bother swearing a vow because the consensus is that nobody keeps solemn promises anymore.

[Universal Sword Donor]

4 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

With Robb starting a rebellion and crowning himself king after his father is arrested and executed the Bolton reaction to the Winterfell incident isn't all that extreme. Keep in mind that with 'Arya' the Boltons lost their main instrument to control the Northmen. They need her back desperately, regardless what's going on with Stannis. Even if they crushed him, they need the Stark girl to keep the Northmen in line.

This is entirely irrelevant to the entire situation.

4 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Presumably, Ramsay doesn't know where Theon and 'Arya' are but the latter might arrive at Castle Black shortly after the Pink Letter, possibly even before Jon could draft a response to the Pink Letter assuming he ever considered doing that.

Ramsay caught Abel and the six wildingling women but a crippled theon and a 12 year old girl will make it 700ish miles back up the kingsroad without horses in 3-4 feet of snow? Before a raven gets there? This is one of the main reasons why I don't believe he wrote the letter.

4 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The Boltons captured Mance and/or some of his women, and it is from them that Ramsay learned that Mance and the women came to Winterfell to steal away Ramsay's wife. Mance acted on Jon's behalf in all of that, and nobody in this world makes fine distinctions between the actions of a sworn man and his master. That is why Ned loathes all of House Lannister for Jaime and Tywin's actions ... it is also the reason why Tywin is loathed by Ned and the Martells for Gregor's and Amory's actions, why the Freys are collectively loathed for the Red Wedding regardless whether they are guilty or not, etc.

Right John is indeed responsible for Mance. Won't debate that.

4 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

This is a world of personal loyalty and responsibility. The actions of your sworn men reflect back on you, just as your actions/commands reflect back on them. And Mance did act as Jon's sworn man.

Don't need to repeat yourself here.

4 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

We are not at that point yet. Else people would celebrate Jaime for murdering the Mad King ... or nobody would have assassinated Jon Snow after what he did in the wake of the Pink Letter. And the point of the story is likely not that you have to be Littlefinger to survive ... or that everybody will turn into Littlefinger to survive.

1) Jaime didn't bother saying why he killed Aerys, otherwise that would have changed.

2) We don't know if Jon is even dead, let alone how many people conspired to kill him .Your argument is a lot less convincing if 595 of the existing 600 (?) brothers didn't want him dead.

[Aline de Gavrillac]

12 hours ago, SeanF said:

Times change.  This is a society where nothing that we would regard as the rule of law exists.  In such a world, it's pretty well open to any adult with a weapon to enforce their society's codes of honour.

The Nights Watch is an order with discipline and strict laws.  It does not allow for personal vendetta and for a very good reason.  Jon gave up the right to avenge the Starks when he joined the order. 

[SeanF]

3 hours ago, Aline de Gavrillac said:

The Nights Watch is an order with discipline and strict laws.  It does not allow for personal vendetta and for a very good reason.  Jon gave up the right to avenge the Starks when he joined the order. 

The Nights Watch is a rabble and a joke.  Its neutrality is a tradition, not a part of its oath.

As to whether neutrality is always a good thing, I'd say that Mr. J. S. Mill has the answer to that (equally applicable to Aerys' Kingsguard, or Dany in Astapor);-

"Let not anyone think it sufficient he take no part and form no opinion.  All that is needed for bad men to compass their ends is that good men look on and do nothing."

[Lord Varys]

12 hours ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

This is entirely irrelevant to the entire situation.

Nope, it explains why Ramsay Bolton needs his bride back ... and why he has a right to demand her back.

12 hours ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

Ramsay caught Abel and the six wildingling women but a crippled theon and a 12 year old girl will make it 700ish miles back up the kingsroad without horses in 3-4 feet of snow? Before a raven gets there? This is one of the main reasons why I don't believe he wrote the letter.

Ramsay obviously wrote the letter. But the fact that he also mentions he crushed Stannis in the letter could indicate that the letter was written not shortly after they tortured Mance and/or the surviving wildling women into revealing on whose behalf they had been infiltrating Winterfell but only after they attacked Stannis' camp and found out that both Theon and 'Arya' were gone. If the Boltons were believing they could repair the damage done to them simply by crushing Stannis - because they would find 'Arya' and Theon there - then they would have little motivation to drag Jon Snow into all that. Because after Stannis is gone, and 'Arya' is safely back with Ramsay they could then wrap up everything by marching to the Wall with their army and do away with Shireen, Selyse, and Melisandre.

After all, Theon 1 makes it clear that Jeyne is going to Castle Black. And of course they do still have horses in Stannis' camp. The southron horses are dying, but not the horses of the clansmen nor the horses of Tycho's party. And 'Arya' is supposed to accompany Tycho back to the Wall, no?

Also, the snow storm is a regional thing. The lands around Winterfell are caked in snow, not the entire North. The Wall is spared heavy snowfalls for the time being. That means Jeyne and Tycho could be out of the heavy snows as soon as they are couple of miles north of Stannis' village.

12 hours ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

1) Jaime didn't bother saying why he killed Aerys, otherwise that would have changed.

We don't know that. It could have changed ... but people would still not think that it is the right thing to swear solemn vows and then break them.

12 hours ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

2) We don't know if Jon is even dead, let alone how many people conspired to kill him .Your argument is a lot less convincing if 595 of the existing 600 (?) brothers didn't want him dead.

Whether he is truly dead or not has no bearing on the fact that his men gutted him. They didn't think he had the right to do as he pleased. We will learn how many men are on board with Bowen's call soon enough, but what's going to change things is the miracle of Jon's resurrection (or magical healing, if you want to pretend he isn't dead) ... and that will be something akin to Beric's or Catelyn's return from the death or Daenerys hatching the dragon eggs. That will be a cultural game changer. The Dothraki realized they could have a female khal when Dany survived death and hatched the dragon eggs. The Riverlanders following Beric and Cat realized that R'hllor is a god more real and powerful than the Seven, that's why they convert, etc.

The idea that so much as a single black brother thinks there are 'special rules' for Lord Commander Snow and his family - rules that allow Snow to interfere with the business of the Realm and use the assets at his disposal for his own egoistical needs - isn't very likely. They all do have families in Westeros. Jon messing with the Boltons for Arya's sake is like Jeor sending men to Daenerys to fetch Jorah back, Donnel Hill leaving the Wall to help Tywin, Cotter Pyke sending men to Old Wyk to influence the Kingsmoot, etc.

7 hours ago, SeanF said:

The Nights Watch is a rabble and a joke.  Its neutrality is a tradition, not a part of its oath.

It is an implicit part of the oath, actually. 'I will guard the realms of men' refers to the fact that the NW protects the Hundred/Seven Kingdoms of Westeros against the dangers from beyond the Wall. Like Jon turns the vow around to also cover the wildlings who are men ... the Boltons and Freys and Lannisters south of the Wall are men, too. And men from whose ranks the NW drew their men since time immemorial.

The part about wearing now crowns, winning no glory, fathering no children, and living and dying at one's post also contains all that implicitly. The posts of the NW are at the Wall, not at various places south of the Wall.

7 hours ago, SeanF said:

As to whether neutrality is always a good thing, I'd say that Mr. J. S. Mill has the answer to that (equally applicable to Aerys' Kingsguard, or Dany in Astapor);-

"Let not anyone think it sufficient he take no part and form no opinion.  All that is needed for bad men to compass their ends is that good men look on and do nothing."

The neutrality of the NW is an instrumental part of how they work. It is a fundamental part of their nature. It is an institution formed by a hundred warring kingdoms to defend them against a common enemy. It couldn't have survived a fortnight if it hadn't been very clear from the start that the NW - and especially their leaders - would not use the power at their command to interfere with the affairs of the Hundred Kingdoms. Or to pursue private vendettas and feuds from the time before they took the black.

If some madman were in charge of the Seven Kingdoms who planned genocide or something along those lines I'd say that the NW also should take part. Also when somebody were to declare war on them without good cause (which unfortunately isn't the case here, since Ramsay is, unfortunately, justified when he threatens Jon) then they should also defend themselves.

But Jon Snow didn't have to take part in the feud between the Boltons and Stannis to the degree that he did. That's something he wanted to, like he also wanted to help Robb in his war, etc.

[Jay21]

I don't think that Ramsey Bolton is the first Bolton to claim dominion of Winterfell yet it remains a 'Stark place'. How many Kings of Winter are locked up in the basement? 3-500? more? Does the heart tree recognize the changing of hands? How many of the Northmen, like Manderly are 'eating all of this excrement and praising its taste' while planning betrayal and never actually acknowledging that Roose or Ramsey are the rightful lord of Winterfell? If the right of conquest is enough, then why the BS with Jeyne Poole?

Who is the arbiter of guest rights? Who acknowledges a host's dominion? Who is going to see them enforced and who is going to justify ignoring them after the fact? If all of Mance's actions ultimately result in the return of a Stark to Winterfell as lord or king, then wont they be seen as restoring Winterfell to its rightful owners? I think there's more to possession in this instance than just 'fast and loose fish', and I think Roose does too which is why he spends so much effort on appearances. It's lipstick on a pig though, Winterfell isn't his home and he's not the host, he's a thief.

[Daeron the Daring]

On 4/12/2021 at 6:16 PM, Lord Varys said:

Guest right would be something that is extended to and demanded by 'real people', i.e. noblemen ... but that doesn't mean that what Mance and his women did wasn't pretty much the same as breaking guest right even if it isn't framed in such terms.

No. Since they weren't guests, they did not violate the guest rights. Your household (your servants) aren't your guests. Mance offered his service as a bard, and the spearwives became employees. 

That doesn't mean it's not an amoral thing, but it's not violating guest rights, and yes, Jon is responsible for it at some extent.

[Moiraine Sedai]

25 minutes ago, Daeron the Daring said:

No. Since they weren't guests, they did not violate the guest rights. Your household (your servants) aren't your guests. Mance offered his service as a bard, and the spearwives became employees. 

That doesn't mean it's not an amoral thing, but it's not violating guest rights, and yes, Jon is responsible for it at some extent.

Mance was already employed for life at the Wall. He can't honestly become a servant of the Bolton's. He arrived knowing he was going to tell a lie and harm his host. The girls were working for Joe Snow too.  They are all guilty of violating guest rights.

Guest rights is neither arbitrary nor subject to loose interpretation. If it were, Walder would be right to claim the RW was nothing more than a family squabble because Roslyn married Edmure, who was Robb's uncle. They were all one unhappy family. Mance and Walder are both guilty of breaking guest rights. 

[Tagganaro]

Is an infiltration mission/rescue mission a violation of guest rights?  I don't know, seems like it might be to me but then again, Mance is very aware of guest rights and follows it himself, so I'm not sure he would willingly violate it.  Jon is at least partly responsible but I would not assign much responsibility to Jon as Mance is freelancing here.

Maybe it's kind of an eye for an eye , the Boltons/Freys lose their rights to invoke guest rights after the Red Wedding.  

[Lord Varys]

2 hours ago, Daeron the Daring said:

No. Since they weren't guests, they did not violate the guest rights. Your household (your servants) aren't your guests. Mance offered his service as a bard, and the spearwives became employees. 

No, that doesn't really fly. If you work for me and I invite you to my wedding you still are my guest. You even are my guest if you also work at my wedding. Being a guest means you are welcome in my home ... it doesn't mean you cannot work for me.

And the idea that only some types of guests are super safe and only them breaking guest right is a really big sin also makes little sense. There is certainly less ritual involved when you take uninvited guests to a wedding - say, Dunk & Egg at Whitewalls - but they are guests either way.

The point of guest right is that you are safe under another man's roof no matter what. And the same, the host is also safe from harm from his guests as well as other guests.

In that sense Mance and his women did break guest right when they were starting to murder people at Winterfell. Although not so much when they took Jeyne with them since she actually wanted to go/didn't go against her will. And technically she is the Lady of Winterfell.

[Daeron the Daring]

2 hours ago, Moiraine Sedai said:

Mance was already employed for life at the Wall.

 

2 hours ago, Moiraine Sedai said:

He can't honestly become a servant of the Bolton's.

There's no need of pointing out how things would be if everyone had been behaving ordinarily.

But if you want to go this way, how can a deserter violate guest rights if he's an outlaw and shouldn't even be allowed to receive it because it's against the law. So if you say he can't become a servant, he can't receive guest right, so in the end couldn't break it. Don't get into this, I swear to you I can always find a way to disprove anything you bring up, and I will be right.

2 hours ago, Moiraine Sedai said:

He arrived knowing he was going to tell a lie and harm his host. The girls were working for Joe Snow too.  They are all guilty of violating guest rights.

They aren't guests. Do you know the meaning of the word guest? 

And not only that, but that would mean that no lord could ever do anything to his servants, because it's violating guest rights? Do you even realize what you're talking?

Whether he arrived knowing he will harm people or not, he isn't a guest. A guest doesn't have to offer any kind of service to receive roof over himself. But Mance came and offerend his services, that's why he was allowed to stay, not because Roose Bolton was willing to feed another mouth out of courtesy.

2 hours ago, Moiraine Sedai said:

Guest rights is neither arbitrary nor subject to loose interpretation.

Agreed. That's why you cant extend it on someone who doesn't have it.

2 hours ago, Moiraine Sedai said:

If it were, Walder would be right to claim the RW was nothing more than a family squabble because Roslyn married Edmure, who was Robb's uncle. They were all one unhappy family. Mance and Walder are both guilty of breaking guest rights. 

This is bullshit for a simple reason: Your family member (be it trough blood or marriage) might still not be or be your guest.