Jump to content

Mance Rayder and Jon Snow violated guest rights


Son of Man

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

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.

So what? Can't a lord throw his servant into jail if he wishes to because guest rights protect him/her? Because Mance became a servant/employee, along with his spearwives. That's why he was allowed to a) stay in Winterfell b) attend at the wedding as a singer. But he was obligated to do his job. Is a guest obligated to do anything? No. Except not violating guest rights.

 

12 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

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.

Mance and his women aren't uninvited guests. He showed up and offered his services as a bard, and the spearwives' too.

14 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

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.

No. It does only apply on guests. That's why it's guest right, not anything else, but guest right. Servants aren't guests. If they were, the host wouldn't be able to harm his own servants! For example, a guest receives food out of courtesy, a seevant receives roof over himself and foos because he's working for the lord.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I dislilke here is the attempt :-

(a) to demand an extremely high standard from people who infiltrate Winterfell to harm the Boltons and Freys, and 

(b) to tolerate an extremely low standard from the Boltons and Freys.

Murder guests, commit regicide and treason, massacre your comrades in arms, and I'm afraid, you lose your privileges. F+ck the people who do that.

This is an exact mirror of the arguments that are made against Daenerys or Arya, that somehow, they are meant to adopt an ethic of unconditional forgiveness towards their enemies, who are in turn, entitled to behave as they please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Daeron the Daring said:

So what? Can't a lord throw his servant into jail if he wishes to because guest rights protect him/her? Because Mance became a servant/employee, along with his spearwives. That's why he was allowed to a) stay in Winterfell b) attend at the wedding as a singer. But he was obligated to do his job. Is a guest obligated to do anything? No. Except not violating guest rights.

They are still guests. You aren't just a guest when you just hang out at a place, you are a guest when you do not permanently live at a place.

4 minutes ago, Daeron the Daring said:

Mance and his women aren't uninvited guests. He showed up and offered his services as a bard, and the spearwives' too.

They showed up uninvited and were then taken in.

4 minutes ago, Daeron the Daring said:

No. It does only apply on guests. That's why it's guest right, not anything else, but guest right. Servants aren't guests. If they were, the host wouldn't be able to harm his own servants! For example, a guest receives food out of courtesy, a seevant receives roof over himself and foos because he's working for the lord.

It doesn't only extend to guests. Also to host. It is a contract that guests are safe from harm from the host and from each other.

Servants who live in a castle/keep aren't guests. Say, if we take TSS then Dunk and Bennis are Eustace's guests, but Sam Stoops and his wife live permanently at Standfast and aren't guests.

Vice versa, a Stark servant living at Winterfell isn't a guest, but any retainer living outside the walls and hanging out at the castle for this or that reason would be a guest.

The reason why people don't make a big thing out of this is that people who aren't noblemen really don't get special treatment.

2 minutes ago, SeanF said:

What I dislilke here is the attempt :-

(a) to demand an extremely high standard from people who infiltrate Winterfell to harm the Boltons and Freys, and 

(b) to tolerate an extremely low standard from the Boltons and Freys.

Murder guests, commit regicide and treason, massacre your comrades in arms, and I'm afraid, you lose your privileges. F+ck the people who do that.

This is an exact mirror of the arguments that are made against Daenerys or Arya, that somehow, they are meant to adopt an ethic of unconditional forgiveness towards their enemies, who are in turn, entitled to behave as they please.

I agree with that in principle but for me it is not siding with the Boltons and Freys to point out that what Mance and his women did wasn't nice. It doesn't mean they shouldn't have done it. It just means they are not exactly nice guys and that this is the point of the story ... because George deliberately wrote it so they murdered a couple of people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a useful comparative might be the situation with Marillion in the Vale. As a singer, he was employed by Lysa, and later when littlefinger murders her, he blames Marillion. Marillion is accused of murder, but I don't think any mention is made of broken guest right in the context of Marillion's supposed action.

I think the question then is to what capacity Mance is a guest vs employee. I would argue that the boltons are aceptingthem more in the context of temporary employee than guest.

Also are we sure the breaking of guest right is really some divine sin and not just something that pissed off people in regards to human decency. I mean sure the freys are being killed off, but they were being murdered by people who have legitimate grevineces about them, not crazy accidents.

you make enemies of people and they do bad things in turn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

They are still guests. You aren't just a guest when you just hang out at a place, you are a guest when you do not permanently live at a place.

That you're just a temporary men there doesn't mean you're a guest. That's not how it works. Just as Targaryeninkingslanding pointed out, Marillion, also a singer, wasn't violating guest rights either. And you can say he wasn't just a temporary 'employee', but everyone is. Noone is hired from an extent of x to y, except for mercenary guards or Idunno.

I'm not arguing over whether it was a good or bad thing, because it's obvious, but it wasn't violating the guest right.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

They showed up uninvited and were then taken in.

Yes. But not because Roose Bolton, or anyone you ses as host was inclined to feed 7 more mouths for no reason, but because Mance offered their services. And we are literally told that Roose allows them to stay in those conditions (aka becoming employees, not as guests).

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

doesn't only extend to guests. Also to host. It is a contract that guests are safe from harm from the host and from each other.

Yea, I know. I tought it was obvious I know.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Vice versa, a Stark servant living at Winterfell isn't a guest, but any retainer living outside the walls and hanging out at the castle for this or that reason would be a guest.

Except Mance and the spearwives weren't hanging around for this or that reason. They were around because they've become employees, and that's the reason they aren't dismissed after the wedding or are leaving. I don't know how else I can express myself regarding all this. 

Come on now, is a washerwoman or a whore your guest if he lives at your court and works for you? Or a bard, who receives roof and food for his SERVICES, not because of his noble blood or anything.

I'm not defending them from what they did. I think it's just plotting, murder and amoral behaviour, but not violatiom of guest right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Targaryeninkingslanding said:

I think a useful comparative might be the situation with Marillion in the Vale. As a singer, he was employed by Lysa, and later when littlefinger murders her, he blames Marillion. Marillion is accused of murder, but I don't think any mention is made of broken guest right in the context of Marillion's supposed action.

I think the question then is to what capacity Mance is a guest vs employee. I would argue that the boltons are aceptingthem more in the context of temporary employee than guest.

Also are we sure the breaking of guest right is really some divine sin and not just something that pissed off people in regards to human decency. I mean sure the freys are being killed off, but they were being murdered by people who have legitimate grevineces about them, not crazy accidents.

you make enemies of people and they do bad things in turn.

Marillion became a permanent part of Lysa Arryn's court. You cannot compare him to Abel and his women who, as far as we know, joined the gang at Winterfell only for the duration of the wedding.

Marillion you can compare to a maester or a man-at-arms in service of a lord who also lives permanently at said lord's castle.

But in general - the whole guest right issue only comes up as a thing when nobles have beef among themselves. Nobody would extend proper guest right, etc. to a commoner or servant nor condemn a fellow noble for abusing or murdering such a person under your roof.

In that sense guest right is sort of akin to the noble privilege of trial-by-combat ... that's also not something that society grants to Pate the peasant. Much less the right to have a champion represent you at a trial-by-combat.

But if you ask yourself what is actually a guest in Westeros then it is quite clear that whoever enters another man's home is a guest ... regardless what he does there. I mean, if we are talking Mance then beyond the Wall there are no nobles, so basically everybody who shares your fireplace or sleeps in your hut or stable is a guest. The idea that Mance would think singing some songs turns him into an 'employee' isn't not very likely. Those are not really concept in wildling society ... and even in the Seven Kingdoms employees in a modern sense aren't really a thing.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Daeron the Daring said:

 

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.

Mance Rayder will always be a man of the Night's Watch for as long as he's breathing.  And yes, being a member of the Night's Watch does not exclude a person from receiving guest rights and being obligated to observe guest rights.  What he cannot be is an employee of Roose Bolton. 

You can't win in this debate.  You've already lost this part of the argument.  You wouldn't be trying to intimidate me, are you? :rolleyes: That wouldn't be very nice.  B)

Quote

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.

An exchange of goods and services does not prevent the existence of guest rights.  Mance Rayder was trusted by the Boltons and opened their gates to him and his girls.  He violated that trust and murdered Bolton's people.  That violated guest rights.  

Quote

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

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

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Moiraine Sedai said:

Mance Rayder will always be a man of the Night's Watch for as long as he's breathing.  And yes, being a member of the Night's Watch does not exclude a person from receiving guest rights and being obligated to observe guest rights.  What he cannot be is an employee of Roose Bolton. 

Dude, this isn't even what I'm saying.

This is how our conversation went on:

-You said he can't become an employee/servant because he's a member of the NW.

-I say that then he can't receive guest rights as a deserter, following your oen logic.

-Now you claim he can receive it as a member of the NW. But he's a deserter, an outlaw dude. If he can receive guest rights in disguise, why can't he become an employee? He left his 'job', after all.

You just completely exclude the part of your suggestion that doesn't fit into your picture you imagined to have another reason to hate. Congratulations.

4 hours ago, Moiraine Sedai said:

You can't win in this debate.  You've already lost this part of the argument.  You wouldn't be trying to intimidate me, are you? :rolleyes: That wouldn't be very nice.  B)

Who's tryna intimidate you? I was just trying to show you how dumb and illogical assumptions you make to prove something that isn't there. 

You state something that literally disproves your suggestion, but decide to ignore it. Altough I do not agree with Lord Varys, he isn't comig up with something unreasonable, but is trying to prove he's right trough explaining his point and why he thinks Mance was a guest, without contradicting himself. On the other hand, you, without entirely taking into account what you just said and stated before, are trying to find any way you could say he violated guest rights.

4 hours ago, Moiraine Sedai said:

An exchange of goods and services does not prevent the existence of guest rights.  Mance Rayder was trusted by the Boltons and opened their gates to him and his girls.  He violated that trust and murdered Bolton's people.  That violated guest rights.  

That he was trusted changed nothing. Violating that isn't violating guest rights. Why would it be?

And yes, an exchange of goods and services does not prevent the existence of guest rights, but you've got to answer this question: For what reason was Mance allowed to stay at Winterfell?

a) Roose was courteous

b) He is providing services in exchange

If it's b, then he just wasn't a guest. In this case, a guest is someone who's allowed to stay under your roof in exchange of NOTHING! Nothing. If Mance showed up and asked if he could stay because he's hungry or anything else, and Roose allowed him to stay without him benefiting from this, then he would've become a guest. But that's not what happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys, if you exclude 'employees' in a guest right discussion we'd also have to ask whether Walder Frey did break guest right... After all, does he actually own the Twins? Doesn't he just hold them at the leisure of his overlords? Isn't he an 'employee' of King Robb and/or Edmure Tully, his liege lord, in that sense? Can a king or lord paramount even be 'a guest' in his own land when he rules and owns it all, technically?

Obviously not. Which would mean that a lord or king visiting a singer or smith or baker in his service in the man's own home would also be under the protection of guest right because the point there isn't the working relationship between guest and host but simply the guest-host relationship. They could be family, mortal enemies, working buddies, king and peasant, etc. - guest right extends to all.

One also sees that in the Rat Cook story - the Rat Cook was just a humble cook at the Nightfort, he wasn't the formal host of the Andal king, simply a man in Lord Commander's employ. Yet guest right was granted to the visitors, so the Andal king and his son were protected by it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want a loophole for Mance and his women then interpret them as guests of 'Arya Stark, Lady of Winterfell'. That could work. They came to save the Lady of the castle from the men keeping her against her will and torturing her. That can work. After all, the one truly living at Winterfell, the one owning that place would technically be Lady Arya, not Roose and not Ramsay.

If in-universe somebody would accuse Mance of breaking guest right - which Roose and Ramsay might actually do - then this could be an argument Mance might be using. And I think it does have merit.

But the idea that they aren't guests at Winterfell just makes no sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

Of course it was Jeyne. Jeyne doesn’t have ownership nor control of Winterfell. There really is no loophole for Mance.  There is an argument for Jon having ignorance as his loophole, but none for Mance.

Mance has no idea that it is Jeyne Poole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Mance has no idea that it is Jeyne Poole.

Maybe, maybe not.  I tend to agree Mance probably wouldn't recognize Arya was a fake.  Jaime/Theon spent much more time around her and still take a second to realize she's a fake.  But given that we get Mance telling Jon he recognizes him right away, and that we know Mance saw Arya too at the feast, it's at least possible that Mance would recognize her as a fake.  I think both Theon and Jaime say it's the eyes that give her away, and even though Arya would look far different from when she was a child it's possible Mance would have also noticed the eyes.

I know a little off-topic, but we still have no idea what Mance is really doing in Winterfell.  It's assumed he missed Alys at Longlake as he was ordered to save what ended up being Alys and then went to Winterfell instead, but even Mance himself mentions needing the spearwives for "another ploy" besides saving "Arya".  I think it may be safe to assume Mance was showing up in Winterfell either way and has another objective besides saving Arya, though that is debatable of course.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Tagganaro said:

Maybe, maybe not.  I tend to agree Mance probably wouldn't recognize Arya was a fake.  Jaime/Theon spent much more time around her and still take a second to realize she's a fake.  But given that we get Mance telling Jon he recognizes him right away, and that we know Mance saw Arya too at the feast, it's at least possible that Mance would recognize her as a fake.  I think both Theon and Jaime say it's the eyes that give her away, and even though Arya would look far different from when she was a child it's possible Mance would have also noticed the eyes.

Mance and his women would have *never* risked their own lives to save a fake! Then they would have rather killed or exposed her. They could have used Theon to do either or both.

Without a (fake) Arya the Boltons are finished.

2 minutes ago, Tagganaro said:

I know a little off-topic, but we still have no idea what Mance is really doing in Winterfell.  It's assumed he missed Alys at Longlake as he was ordered to save what ended up being Alys and then went to Winterfell instead, but even Mance himself mentions needing the spearwives for "another ruse" besides saving "Arya".  I think it may be safe to assume Mance was showing up in Winterfell either way and has another objective besides saving Arya, though that is debatable of course.  

Mance operates under the assumption that he has to go to Winterfell in any case. It is not another ruse, it is a certain ploy he wants his women for:

Quote

"I will need horses. Half a dozen good ones. And this is nothing I can do alone. Some of the spearwives penned up at Mole's Town should serve. Women would be best for this. The girl's more like to trust them, and they will help me carry off a certain ploy I have in mind."

To get into the castle, disguised as bard and washerwomen. He doesn't operate under the assumption that he is going to just chance on 'Arya' on the road.

Why this is the case is somewhat weird, since George is not very consistent in that Mel chapter, in part because the chapter ends before they actually make a detailed plan. But the only way I can make sense of that is that the Mel vision of the girl on the horse is a future vision that would only come to pass if Mance or somebody were not to go to Winterfell to save her there.

If they had truly expected to chance on Arya on the road then Jon Snow could have gone himself ... or some of his trusted black brother buddies could have gone. There was no need to send Mance of all people.

This reading that Jon just sent Mance to fetch his sister back who would be found on the road is not what Jon and Mel and Mance are actually discussing in the chapter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Mance and his women would have *never* risked their own lives to save a fake! Then they would have rather killed or exposed her. They could have used Theon to do either or both.

Without a (fake) Arya the Boltons are finished.

Mance operates under the assumption that he has to go to Winterfell in any case. It is not another ruse, it is a certain ploy he wants his women for:

That's what is curious to me.  Mance may know she is a fake just like many of the Northern Lords there suspect.  Perhaps the plan is as simple as taking her away so the Boltons are finished.  Or perhaps it's a distraction for something else Mance has planned.

Quote

 

To get into the castle, disguised as bard and washerwomen. He doesn't operate under the assumption that he is going to just chance on 'Arya' on the road.

Why this is the case is somewhat weird, since George is not very consistent in that Mel chapter, in part because the chapter ends before they actually make a detailed plan. But the only way I can make sense of that is that the Mel vision of the girl on the horse is a future vision that would only come to pass if Mance or somebody were not to go to Winterfell to save her there.

If they had truly expected to chance on Arya on the road then Jon Snow could have gone himself ... or some of his trusted black brother buddies could have gone. There was no need to send Mance of all people.

This reading that Jon just sent Mance to fetch his sister back who would be found on the road is not what Jon and Mel and Mance are actually discussing in the chapter.

 

We have very different readings of this.  Since we have Jon's POV, we know that Jon doesn't think any of this is what was "planned."  Jon is confused when Alys shows up and wonders several times where Mance is afterwards.  Jon seems to fully expect that Mance was going to Longlake to rescue Arya.  He even thinks to himself "a grey girl on a dying horse...on the strength of those words he had loosed Mance Rayder upon the North" or something along those lines (I'm paraphrasing based on memory).  It seems very clear to me that Jon was sending Mance to pick what ended up being Alys at Longlake.  At least from Jon's perspective.  What's unclear is whether Mance is freelancing on his own to help himself or whether he and Melisandre planned this together and he is helping Stannis.  

What's curious and messy to me is that we hear Mance say "I have a certain ploy" in mind that is clearly separate from the rescue "Arya" on a dying horse mission.  That's how I read the "and" in your quoted section.  But Jon hears this and does not respond to it all.  If Jon knew about this ploy, he would not be confused about Mance and his whereabouts after Alys showed up.  Unless Jon is just tricking himself and us readers.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Tagganaro said:

That's what is curious to me.  Mance may know she is a fake just like many of the Northern Lords there suspect.  Perhaps the plan is as simple as taking her away so the Boltons are finished.  Or perhaps it's a distraction for something else Mance has planned.

There is really no need to assume Mance suspects 'Arya' may be a fake. He goes through great lengths to get 'Arya' out and if he was wondering he could and would have forced Theon to tell him the truth. In fact, if he was suspecting something asking Theon about the true identity of Ramsay's bride would have been a crucial part of his talks with Theon, possibly his first question to him.

2 minutes ago, Tagganaro said:

We have very different readings of this.  Since we have Jon's POV, we know that Jon doesn't think any of this is what was "planned."  Jon is confused when Alys shows up and wonders several times where Mance is afterwards.  Jon seems to fully expect that Mance was going to Longlake to rescue Arya.  He even thinks to himself "a grey girl on a dying horse...on the strength of those words he had loosed Mance Rayder upon the North" or something along those lines (I'm paraphrasing based on memory).  It seems very clear to me that Jon was sending Mance to pick what ended up being Alys at Longlake.  At least from Jon's perspective.  What's unclear is whether Mance is freelancing on his own to help himself or whether he and Melisandre planned this together and he is helping Stannis. 

Of course, Jon the character is confused when Alys shows up and it turns out that what Mel was rambling on about had, seemingly, nothing to do with Arya. And he is subsequently irritated and pissed since he doesn't really understand whether Mel fucked with him or not. Did she really persuade Jon to let Mance loose to save Arya ... or did she manipulate Jon to unleash Mance for some other nefarious purpose Jon Snow has no clue about?

That is the main reason Jon doesn't trust Mel after that and keeps her at arm's length despite the fact that she told him about the skulls prophecy and his scheming friends, etc.

In that sense, Jon's issue is not so much about what was Mance supposed to do but rather: Was Mance actually supposed to do what they agreed he would do? Or did they play him.

But it isn't really clear what the plan/mission Mance was given by Jon did or did not entail since the chapter ends before the conversation is over, before Mance picks his women and Jon finally signs off on him leaving Castle Black. Those decisions have yet to be made at the end of the chapter.

I guess George completely rewriting many of Jon's chapters of that book sort of confused things there. I'd also expect that originally Mel's chapter was from Jon's POV.

2 minutes ago, Tagganaro said:

What's curious and messy to me is that we hear Mance say "I have a certain ploy" in mind that is clearly separate from the rescue "Arya" on a dying horse mission.  That's how I read the "and" in your quoted section.  But Jon hears this and does not respond to it all.  If Jon knew about this ploy, he would not be confused about Mance and his whereabouts after Alys showed up.  Unless Jon is just tricking himself and us readers.  

The context there clearly is that the certain ploy is about the mission Mel and Jon are about to give to Mance. Where things get confusing on the part of the reader is if we presuppose that Jon just thought Mance would definitely just pick up Arya on the road. Then we talk Jon the Moron or Jon the Demented because, as you say, he would have to have completely forgotten the women and the talk about the certain ploy.

But his mandate must have been much broader or else he would have (1) never asked for the women because their purpose is clearly just to get him inside Winterfell in the Abel-and-washerwomen disguise, and (2) Jon Snow would have never just given those women to Mance if Mance hadn't explained or hinted at for what he would need them - hinted at in a more concrete manner than we see in the Mel chapter.

If you look at the talk then I'd say Mance already has the idea to enter Winterfell with his women and gain Arya's trust with the help of said women to convince her to leave and to get her out. The idea that he would need the women to win Arya's trust on the road makes no sense. All he would need for that was a black cloak, basically, identifying him as a black brother in service of Lord Commander Snow. Not to mention that if her horse is dying her trust is irrelevant. He could chase her down and capture her easily enough.

A lot of people argue against this because they do not want Jon to be complicit or approving of Mance's mission inside Winterfell ... but if we think about in detail it would make no sense for him to restrict Mance to a strict 'Just pick up my sister if you chance upon her on the road' directive.

As I said - for such a mission alone he would not need Rattleshirt-Mance. It could be anyone at the Wall, a black brother, Jon himself, even Melisandre if she could be persuaded to go. Waiting for somebody on the road isn't a big deal. Instead, the implication in the entire Mance plan is that Mance provides Jon Snow with a means to get his sister back from the Boltons without him actively showing his hands. It may be that they just pick up Arya on the road ... but that things go this way isn't a guarantee. And if Mance thinks as much in the Mel chapter - and he does think that! - then Jon Snow cannot be stupid enough to not also think that.

But I concede that the way it is written is confusing.

Let's say Mance and his women go down the Kingsroad, operating under the assumption a fleeing Arya on a horse would stick to that road exclusively because it is the fastest way to the Wall ... but they do not find Arya. Instead they learn from the folks they meet on the road that Arya Stark is still at Winterfell and about to be married to Ramsay Bolton.

What should they do in that scenario? One imagines, that Jon either implicitly or explicitly told Mance to save Arya Stark, no matter what. That's the mission, and that's what Mance did.

The vision of the girl on the dying horse could still become true if it had been 'Arya' (but she wasn't!) if, say, the gang is pursued after 'Arya' is out of Winterfell and Mance and the women send her ahead and stay behind in attempt to kill or slow down the Bolton hunters.

In that sense, Jon's crucial issue is that it turned out that the girl on the dying horse turned out to be Alys Karstark and not Arya Stark ... and his conclusion is Melisandre is at best incompetent in the prophecy department ... and at the worst she uses prophecy talk to manipulate him.

In fact, if we think about the fact that Jeyne Poole isn't Arya we can reasonably conclude that Jon would also be pissed - outraged even! - if Mance had brought back an 'Arya' that turned out to be Jeyne. He would certainly be glad that Jeyne was safe, I guess, but he would have *never* showed his true colors with the Boltons over Jeyne Poole the way he did while he thought she was Arya.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/13/2021 at 10:53 AM, Lord Varys said:

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

No one is disputing that

On 4/13/2021 at 10:53 AM, Lord Varys said:

Ramsay obviously wrote the letter.

Not even close to obvious

On 4/13/2021 at 10:53 AM, Lord Varys said:

 

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.

That explanation might work for the Freys; however it would not for the northmen in Roose's army. The Umber and Bolton and Dreadfort lands lie to the east or NE of WF, and the air there is coming off the mountains aka more snow.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

Not even close to obvious

Of course, anyone doubting that Ramsay wrote the letter is entering complete crackpot territory.

11 hours ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

That explanation might work for the Freys; however it would not for the northmen in Roose's army. The Umber and Bolton and Dreadfort lands lie to the east or NE of WF, and the air there is coming off the mountains aka more snow.

Not necessarily. Again, the snowstorm is a regional thing. It could be limited bad weather in the Winterfell/Wolfswood region. Even in larger altitudes there is only snow if it snows. If the skies are clear then there won't be any snow there even if it is cold.

But, again - we have no idea when exactly the Pink Letter was written. It could have been as soon as Mance and/or the surviving wildling women confessed ... or only after the Boltons fought their battles against Stannis. We don't know. If they took as long as the Pink Letter implies (seven days of battle) then Jeyne's party - who presumably left Stannis' camp days before the battles involving the Boltons even began - could already be very close to Castle Black by the time Jon Snow is gutted.

When George released Theon 1 he himself confirmed that Theon 1 takes place before the last Jon chapter of ADwD, meaning everything Ramsay claims to have done in the Pink Letter could still happen. Stannis could still be dead. That would imply that the Pink Letter wasn't written and sent while Jeyne and Theon were on their way to Stannis' camp. Or at least that the letter did not reach Castle Black before the events in Theon 1 unfolded.

It is tricky to even guess at how much time must have passed between Jeyne's escape and Mance/the women confessing. How long did it take for the women/Mance to crack? When exactly did anybody start to take the 'Mance Rayder is still alive' story seriously? That would have sounded like a stupid cover story/excuse the first couple of times the tortured people tried to sell that to Roose and Ramsay. And so on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Of course, anyone doubting that Ramsay wrote the letter is entering complete crackpot territory.

Not necessarily. Again, the snowstorm is a regional thing. It could be limited bad weather in the Winterfell/Wolfswood region. Even in larger altitudes there is only snow if it snows. If the skies are clear then there won't be any snow there even if it is cold.

But, again - we have no idea when exactly the Pink Letter was written. It could have been as soon as Mance and/or the surviving wildling women confessed ... or only after the Boltons fought their battles against Stannis. We don't know. If they took as long as the Pink Letter implies (seven days of battle) then Jeyne's party - who presumably left Stannis' camp days before the battles involving the Boltons even began - could already be very close to Castle Black by the time Jon Snow is gutted.

When George released Theon 1 he himself confirmed that Theon 1 takes place before the last Jon chapter of ADwD, meaning everything Ramsay claims to have done in the Pink Letter could still happen. Stannis could still be dead. That would imply that the Pink Letter wasn't written and sent while Jeyne and Theon were on their way to Stannis' camp. Or at least that the letter did not reach Castle Black before the events in Theon 1 unfolded.

It is tricky to even guess at how much time must have passed between Jeyne's escape and Mance/the women confessing. How long did it take for the women/Mance to crack? When exactly did anybody start to take the 'Mance Rayder is still alive' story seriously? That would have sounded like a stupid cover story/excuse the first couple of times the tortured people tried to sell that to Roose and Ramsay. And so on.

This all only makes sense if Mance exposed literally everything to Ramsay (including his own identity first of all). Why would he? I don't see it. Ramsay (if he wrote it) calls himself  Lord of Winterfell, but not Lord of the Dreadfort or Warden of the North. That means, that if he wrote the letter, Roose is still alive. Why would he let then Ramsay deal with this? Isn't it his job as Warden of the North to deal with the Watch if that corrupts or something? Instead sets Ramsay to deal with it? Doesn't sound like Roose, does it? This bothers me when I consider the Pink Letter being written by him. And that he gets into details he shouldn't, if it's really Ramsay. Why does he want Val? Why does he offer Jon mercy, if he knows that the guy can expose the fArya 'lie'? That doesn't really makes sense. If Jon just sends Ramsay what he demanded, the two would never even meet, according to the letter. Then how would Ramsay deal with Jon? Why would he give Jon back Mance, a King-beyond-the-Wall, if the guy is a NW deserter and a King to the wildlings? Also doesn't makes sense.

It makes sense if Mance wrote it, and tries to be authentic while trying to trick Jon too, which requires some irrational demands and offers too (which might be suspicios to Jon). But that then would require a raven to Castle Black (which Mance hardly has), and Mance to be really smart to work out such a sheme.

On the other hand, Stannis has every resource, is smart enough to work out such a plan, but I don't see a reason for doing it. Thinking trough, I think it's either Mance or Ramsay. I can't totally side with any of the two, tho.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Daeron the Daring said:

This all only makes sense if Mance exposed literally everything to Ramsay (including his own identity first of all). Why would he? I don't see it. Ramsay (if he wrote it) calls himself  Lord of Winterfell, but not Lord of the Dreadfort or Warden of the North. That means, that if he wrote the letter, Roose is still alive. Why would he let then Ramsay deal with this? Isn't it his job as Warden of the North to deal with the Watch if that corrupts or something? Instead sets Ramsay to deal with it? Doesn't sound like Roose, does it? This bothers me when I consider the Pink Letter being written by him. And that he gets into details he shouldn't, if it's really Ramsay. Why does he want Val? Why does he offer Jon mercy, if he knows that the guy can expose the fArya 'lie'? That doesn't really makes sense. If Jon just sends Ramsay what he demanded, the two would never even meet, according to the letter. Then how would Ramsay deal with Jon? Why would he give Jon back Mance, a King-beyond-the-Wall, if the guy is a NW deserter and a King to the wildlings? Also doesn't makes sense.

If Ramsay hadn't written the letter Jon would have revealed that in ADwD - the man did receive letters from Ramsay before and knows his handwriting - the huge, spikey hand. The handwriting isn't mentioned in the chapter, true, but it would have been mentioned if it had been different.

Roose had Ramsay write letters before - to Jon and Asha - meaning it is not unusual for him to use Ramsay for that job again. Especially since the entire purpose of the letter is to manipulate Jon into doing something stupid ... and it works perfectly: Jon gets himself killed. And part of the reason why it works is that one bastard goads another into doing things. Which is the reason why Ramsay was chosen to write this letter.

The idea that the point of the letter is to actually get what Ramsay demanded isn't very likely. It is way to stab at Stannis' allies at Castle Black and cause trouble there without actually being there.

12 minutes ago, Daeron the Daring said:

It makes sense if Mance wrote it, and tries to be authentic while trying to trick Jon too, which requires some irrational demands and offers too (which might be suspicios to Jon). But that then would require a raven to Castle Black (which Mance hardly has), and Mance to be really smart to work out such a sheme.

We don't even know whether Mance can write - not very likely considering his background - nor is it conceivable that he had access to a raven sending letters to Castle Black. And while Mance isn't stupid there is just no way that he would send as shitty a message as the Pink Letter to Jon Snow. That's completely outrageous as an idea.

12 minutes ago, Daeron the Daring said:

On the other hand, Stannis has every resource, is smart enough to work out such a plan, but I don't see a reason for doing it. Thinking trough, I think it's either Mance or Ramsay. I can't totally side with any of the two, tho.

Stannis would also not doing something like that. Stannis might fake his death - as he lays out in Theon 1 - to deceive his enemies, but he wouldn't do it to deceive his allies. Massey might hear that Stannis is dead ... but not from Stannis or Stannis' people but his enemies. Just as Jon Snow did when he received Ramsay's letter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...