Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Son of Man

Mance Rayder and Jon Snow violated guest rights

Recommended Posts

Enough posting in these Stark hate threads. Rationality only gets ignored. And these hate posters get more views and replies. Boycott. Let them rant on toxically

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/21/2020 at 10:01 PM, Pontius Pilate said:

Jon is aware of the legend of Bael.  He knew of Mance Rayder's talents for getting into and out of Winterfell.  All of that played into his decision to ignore the man's crimes and use him to pull his sister away from her husband. 

Mance was present during Robert’s visit.  This man doesn’t need secret tunnels.  His ability to deceive is excellent.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Rights is not arbitrary.  This deeply respected tradition came down over a period of thousands of years.  Not every hostile act committed under a roof violates the tradition.  Specific requirements have to be in  place for the guest-host relationship to exist. 

The Sack of King's Landing is not a violation of guest rights.  It was an act of treason though.  Pycelle betrayed his king and that is treason.  But no food was shared beforehand between the people of the city and the Lannister army.  This sharing of food seems to seal the contract between the parties. 

Astapor was not a violation because no food was shared between the parties.  Daenerys sheltered and stayed in her own boat.  The transaction did not take place within a place of residence.  It took place in public.  She was not under the protection of the Masters. 

Craster's Keep was a violation because the Crows came seeking shelter.  A guest-host relationship existed even though the Crows brought their own food.  They shared Craster's roof and ate in front of his fire. 

Mance Rayder violated guest rights because he was under the shelter of the host, Roose Bolton.  Food was shared between the wildlings and the Bolton house staff.  The wildlings were taken in and given the benefit of trust.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Unit A2 said:

Guest Rights is not arbitrary.  This deeply respected tradition came down over a period of thousands of years.  Not every hostile act committed under a roof violates the tradition.  Specific requirements have to be in  place for the guest-host relationship to exist. 

The Sack of King's Landing is not a violation of guest rights.  It was an act of treason though.  Pycelle betrayed his king and that is treason.  But no food was shared beforehand between the people of the city and the Lannister army.  This sharing of food seems to seal the contract between the parties. 

Astapor was not a violation because no food was shared between the parties.  Daenerys sheltered and stayed in her own boat.  The transaction did not take place within a place of residence.  It took place in public.  She was not under the protection of the Masters. 

Craster's Keep was a violation because the Crows came seeking shelter.  A guest-host relationship existed even though the Crows brought their own food.  They shared Craster's roof and ate in front of his fire. 

Mance Rayder violated guest rights because he was under the shelter of the host, Roose Bolton.  Food was shared between the wildlings and the Bolton house staff.  The wildlings were taken in and given the benefit of trust.

 

Guest rights was broken when Jaime and Cersei Lannister pushed Bran Stark from the window.  The king's party were guests of the household.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What most posts in this thread read like:

Nothing could possibly be clearer in the interpretation of Westerosi law: characters that I like did NOT break guest right and characters that I do not like DID break guest right.

Westerosi Statute Citations:

42 W.S.C. § 405(a).

42 W.S.C. § 405(r)(2) (209) (as amended in 215 by Pub. L. No. 114-74).

42 W.S.C. § 405(r)(2) (202) (prior to the 215 amendment).

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/23/2020 at 11:08 PM, Unit A2 said:

Guest Rights is not arbitrary.  This deeply respected tradition came down over a period of thousands of years.  Not every hostile act committed under a roof violates the tradition.  Specific requirements have to be in  place for the guest-host relationship to exist. 

The Sack of King's Landing is not a violation of guest rights.  It was an act of treason though.  Pycelle betrayed his king and that is treason.  But no food was shared beforehand between the people of the city and the Lannister army.  This sharing of food seems to seal the contract between the parties. 

Astapor was not a violation because no food was shared between the parties.  Daenerys sheltered and stayed in her own boat.  The transaction did not take place within a place of residence.  It took place in public.  She was not under the protection of the Masters. 

Craster's Keep was a violation because the Crows came seeking shelter.  A guest-host relationship existed even though the Crows brought their own food.  They shared Craster's roof and ate in front of his fire. 

Mance Rayder violated guest rights because he was under the shelter of the host, Roose Bolton.  Food was shared between the wildlings and the Bolton house staff.  The wildlings were taken in and given the benefit of trust.

 

:agree:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/23/2020 at 11:08 PM, Unit A2 said:

Guest Rights is not arbitrary.  This deeply respected tradition came down over a period of thousands of years.  Not every hostile act committed under a roof violates the tradition.  Specific requirements have to be in  place for the guest-host relationship to exist. 

The Sack of King's Landing is not a violation of guest rights.  It was an act of treason though.  Pycelle betrayed his king and that is treason.  But no food was shared beforehand between the people of the city and the Lannister army.  This sharing of food seems to seal the contract between the parties. 

Astapor was not a violation because no food was shared between the parties.  Daenerys sheltered and stayed in her own boat.  The transaction did not take place within a place of residence.  It took place in public.  She was not under the protection of the Masters. 

Craster's Keep was a violation because the Crows came seeking shelter.  A guest-host relationship existed even though the Crows brought their own food.  They shared Craster's roof and ate in front of his fire. 

Mance Rayder violated guest rights because he was under the shelter of the host, Roose Bolton.  Food was shared between the wildlings and the Bolton house staff.  The wildlings were taken in and given the benefit of trust.

 

:)  agree

Duskendale also broke guest rights when the lord and his family took the king prisoner.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/23/2020 at 11:08 PM, Unit A2 said:

Guest Rights is not arbitrary.  This deeply respected tradition came down over a period of thousands of years.  Not every hostile act committed under a roof violates the tradition.  Specific requirements have to be in  place for the guest-host relationship to exist. 

The Sack of King's Landing is not a violation of guest rights.  It was an act of treason though.  Pycelle betrayed his king and that is treason.  But no food was shared beforehand between the people of the city and the Lannister army.  This sharing of food seems to seal the contract between the parties. 

Astapor was not a violation because no food was shared between the parties.  Daenerys sheltered and stayed in her own boat.  The transaction did not take place within a place of residence.  It took place in public.  She was not under the protection of the Masters. 

Craster's Keep was a violation because the Crows came seeking shelter.  A guest-host relationship existed even though the Crows brought their own food.  They shared Craster's roof and ate in front of his fire. 

Mance Rayder violated guest rights because he was under the shelter of the host, Roose Bolton.  Food was shared between the wildlings and the Bolton house staff.  The wildlings were taken in and given the benefit of trust.

 

Right.  The host also has the option of kicking out the guests.  The guest cannot force the host to shelter him and guaranteed protection for as long as he wants. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/29/2020 at 8:35 AM, Kierria said:

Right.  The host also has the option of kicking out the guests.  The guest cannot force the host to shelter him and guaranteed protection for as long as he wants. 

The guest can deny entry to a potential guests.  There is a strict formality involved when ending the protection.  Both sides must be informed that the protection will end and when.  Manderly did this with the Freys through the formal giving of farewell gifts.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/23/2020 at 11:08 PM, Unit A2 said:

Guest Rights is not arbitrary.  This deeply respected tradition came down over a period of thousands of years.  Not every hostile act committed under a roof violates the tradition.  Specific requirements have to be in  place for the guest-host relationship to exist. 

The Sack of King's Landing is not a violation of guest rights.  It was an act of treason though.  Pycelle betrayed his king and that is treason.  But no food was shared beforehand between the people of the city and the Lannister army.  This sharing of food seems to seal the contract between the parties. 

Astapor was not a violation because no food was shared between the parties.  Daenerys sheltered and stayed in her own boat.  The transaction did not take place within a place of residence.  It took place in public.  She was not under the protection of the Masters. 

Craster's Keep was a violation because the Crows came seeking shelter.  A guest-host relationship existed even though the Crows brought their own food.  They shared Craster's roof and ate in front of his fire. 

Mance Rayder violated guest rights because he was under the shelter of the host, Roose Bolton.  Food was shared between the wildlings and the Bolton house staff.  The wildlings were taken in and given the benefit of trust.

 

Sansa is guilty as well.  She is slowly poisoning Sweetrobin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/23/2020 at 11:08 PM, Unit A2 said:

Guest Rights is not arbitrary.  This deeply respected tradition came down over a period of thousands of years.  Not every hostile act committed under a roof violates the tradition.  Specific requirements have to be in  place for the guest-host relationship to exist. 

The Sack of King's Landing is not a violation of guest rights.  It was an act of treason though.  Pycelle betrayed his king and that is treason.  But no food was shared beforehand between the people of the city and the Lannister army.  This sharing of food seems to seal the contract between the parties. 

Astapor was not a violation because no food was shared between the parties.  Daenerys sheltered and stayed in her own boat.  The transaction did not take place within a place of residence.  It took place in public.  She was not under the protection of the Masters. 

Craster's Keep was a violation because the Crows came seeking shelter.  A guest-host relationship existed even though the Crows brought their own food.  They shared Craster's roof and ate in front of his fire. 

Mance Rayder violated guest rights because he was under the shelter of the host, Roose Bolton.  Food was shared between the wildlings and the Bolton house staff.  The wildlings were taken in and given the benefit of trust.

 

:agree:

Walder Frey had a right to get even with the Starks but the manner in which he carried it out broke custom.  I would put the rw on that list. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

During the wedding many people died from people in the service of other guests and no one bats an eye. That is because in the eyes of the Nortmen the Boltons are not the owners of Winterfell. In the eyes of the many FArya and not the Boltons are the owners of both the North and Winterfell and that is why they needed the wedding.

Share this post


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

Infiltrating a castle to rescue a captive is not breach of guest right.  The premise is absurd.

In their world, there are situations in which the bride is not given a choice and it is still considered legal.  The wildlings themselves do not require consent.  Cersei, Lyanna, Roslyn, those did not choose to marry and yet their engagement were considered legal.  Mance and his girls are guilty of the violation of guest rights.  They murdered Roose Bolton's workers.  Jon Snow sent them on that mission.  Jon Snow was Mance Rayder's commanding officer.  So yes, it was absolutely a violation of guest rights.

Share this post


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

In their world, there are situations in which the bride is not given a choice and it is still considered legal.  The wildlings themselves do not require consent.  Cersei, Lyanna, Roslyn, those did not choose to marry and yet their engagement were considered legal.  Mance and his girls are guilty of the violation of guest rights.  They murdered Roose Bolton's workers.  Jon Snow sent them on that mission.  Jon Snow was Mance Rayder's commanding officer.  So yes, it was absolutely a violation of guest rights.

Tom o' Sevens and other members of the BWB are infiltrating Riverrun, presumably with a view to seizing the castle.    That is a ruse de guerre, as much as Mance and his spearwives infiltrating Winterfell.

Wedding women at sword point is only lawful so long as the woman remains a captive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Rondo said:

They murdered Roose Bolton's workers.  Jon Snow sent them on that mission.  Jon Snow was Mance Rayder's commanding officer.  So yes, it was absolutely a violation of guest rights.

Where not sure which of the spear wives murdered, but we do know that at least 2-3 are now dead (we Saw them die) and so that alone may be the punishment for that act. You could also consider that Jon did not order them to kill, it was something they simply chose to do. Finally there is the reality that Mance is a king, and not necessarily considered a member of the nights watch by any attentive gods. the Boltons themselves were in violation of guest rite during the red wedding, as were the freys- the primary two groups targeted in Winterfell. These are possibly mitigating factors that may release jon from breaking guest rite, but it could just as well be like you said.

Regardless of the fact, jon snow is stabbed not long after the this, and that could be the punishment for his violating guest rite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This post is so dumb... it was a covert mission, clearly not the thing guest right prevents, did Tyrion violate guest right when he killed Tywin and Shae? did Osha violate guest right when she killed Drennan? of course not.

Share this post


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

This post is so dumb... it was a covert mission, clearly not the thing guest right prevents, did Tyrion violate guest right when he killed Tywin and Shae? did Osha violate guest right when she killed Drennan? of course not.

What? Aren't the Starks and Jon Snow the Great Others while the Freys and Bolton the heroes? What do you mean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Daeron the Daring said:

I mean, Mance and his spearwives were employees, never guests. They were allowed to stay because Mance was singing and the women were working. It's that simple.

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.

On 4/10/2021 at 5:03 PM, SeanF said:

Tom o' Sevens and other members of the BWB are infiltrating Riverrun, presumably with a view to seizing the castle.    That is a ruse de guerre, as much as Mance and his spearwives infiltrating Winterfell.

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.

On 4/10/2021 at 5:03 PM, SeanF said:

Wedding women at sword point is only lawful so long as the woman remains a captive.

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.

On 4/10/2021 at 8:15 PM, Targaryeninkingslanding said:

Where not sure which of the spear wives murdered, but we do know that at least 2-3 are now dead (we Saw them die) and so that alone may be the punishment for that act. You could also consider that Jon did not order them to kill, it was something they simply chose to do. Finally there is the reality that Mance is a king, and not necessarily considered a member of the nights watch by any attentive gods. the Boltons themselves were in violation of guest rite during the red wedding, as were the freys- the primary two groups targeted in Winterfell. These are possibly mitigating factors that may release jon from breaking guest rite, but it could just as well be like you said.

Regardless of the fact, jon snow is stabbed not long after the this, and that could be the punishment for his violating guest rite.

Mance is Jon's man by the time he goes on his mission. This is reiterated multiple times in ADwD when Stannis again and again states that Rattleshirt (Mance in disguise) has been given to Jon, and he himself literally pledges himself to Jon Snow.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...