Jump to content
Brynden"Bloodraven" Rivers

Legal Justification for the NW to march on WF

Recommended Posts

(This is totally not a topic to draw out lines between the Stark haters and the normal people on this forum)

 

Jon Snow has a very strong legal justification to march on the Boltons of Winterfell. 

Quote

 

“Your false king is dead, bastard. He and all his host were smashed in seven days of battle.I have his magic sword. Tell his red whore.Your false king's friends are dead. Their heads upon the walls of Winterfell. Come see them, bastard. Your false king lied, and so did you. You told the world you burned the King-Beyond-the-Wall. Instead you sent him to Winterfell to steal my bride from me.I will have my bride back. If you want Mance Rayder back, come and get him. I have him in a cage for all the north to see, proof of your lies. The cage is cold, but I have made him a warm cloak from the skins of the six whores who came with him to Winterfell.I want my bride back. I want the false king's queen. I want his daughter and his red witch. I want this wildling princess. I want his little prince, the wildling babe. And I want my Reek. Send them to me, bastard, and I will not trouble you or your black crows. Keep them from me, and I will cut out your bastard's heart and eat it.

Ramsay Bolton,

Trueborn Lord of Winterfell.” 

 

 

This is the official letter from Ramsay Bolton, the Lord of Winterfell to Lord Commander of the Night’s Watch, Jon Snow. The Lord of Winterfell, in this scenario, is a minor noble and has jurisdiction over the lands he has been allotted by the Warden of the North and the King of the Seven Kingdoms. Technically, only the King or the Warden of the North can directly oppose the Lord Commander or has direct jurisdiction over the Night’s Watch. Ramsay Bolton is neither. He is the son of the Warden of the North, but he holds no real power. He is legitimized by the Iron Throne, but that also gives him no authority. So Jon doesn’t have to answer to Ramsay at all. 

Second, there is also the matter of guest right. All the people Ramsay wants have guest right under the roof of Castle Black/Nightfort because they have consumed food at either Castle Black or the Nightfort which is under Jon’s domain. This means that they would either have to willingly go to Ramsay Bolton to be arrested (which only Stark haters would do) or Jon would have to arrest them which would violate guest right which is the most sacred of all Northern laws.

Third, Ramsay has no legal basis to attack Jon over the matter of a dead king’s daughter and wildling prisoners. These people have not overtly committed treason nor committed any crimes against the Iron Throne. So Jon was legally justified in attacking or defending himself against a Bolton attack,especially if it was led by Ramsay Bolton, a minor lord. 

Edited by Brynden"Bloodraven" Rivers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well a recurring theme in the history of Westeros is might makes right. If Jon managed to march on Winterfell and pull it off they can justify it later. If Bowen and company manages to seize control and hold on to it, their execution of Lord Commander Snow was perfectly legal. Varys' comments to Tyrion basically touch on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no legal justification. Even if you did justify it with the Northern lords, if KL assembles a large enough army with good supply lines, veteran troops and good ships and sailors, along with a seasoned commander they'd still be fucked. To put it mildly. Though the chances of anyone caring are low. They have their own plots and ambitions, nothing to do with a frozen wasteland. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Brynden"Bloodraven" Rivers said:

(This is totally not a topic to draw out lines between the Stark haters and the normal people on this forum)

 

Jon Snow has a very strong legal justification to march on the Boltons of Winterfell. 

 

This is the official letter from Ramsay Bolton, the Lord of Winterfell to Lord Commander of the Night’s Watch, Jon Snow. The Lord of Winterfell, in this scenario, is a minor noble and has jurisdiction over the lands he has been allotted by the Warden of the North and the King of the Seven Kingdoms. Technically, only the King or the Warden of the North can directly oppose the Lord Commander or has direct jurisdiction over the Night’s Watch. Ramsay Bolton is neither. He is the son of the Warden of the North, but he holds no real power. He is legitimized by the Iron Throne, but that also gives him no authority. So Jon doesn’t have to answer to Ramsay at all. 

Second, there is also the matter of guest right. All the people Ramsay wants have guest right under the roof of Castle Black/Nightfort because they have consumed food at either Castle Black or the Nightfort which is under Jon’s domain. This means that they would either have to willingly go to Ramsay Bolton to be arrested (which only Stark haters would do) or Jon would have to arrest them which would violate guest right which is the most sacred of all Northern laws.

Third, Ramsay has no legal basis to attack Jon over the matter of a dead king’s daughter and wildling prisoners. These people have not overtly committed treason nor committed any crimes against the Iron Throne. So Jon was legally justified in attacking or defending himself against a Bolton attack,especially if it was led by Ramsay Bolton, a minor lord. 

Jon Snow had no legal justification to send Mance Rayder to get and hide his sister from Ramsay Bolton. He ordered a sworn man of the watch to carry out an illegal mission.  Jon Snow had no legal justification to form an army of wildlings to assault the Boltons.  Jon had a lot to answer for because he sent his man, Mance Rayder, on a mission to get and bring his sister to the Wall.  Mance Rayder tricked the Boltons, was allowed shelter and given food.  Mance repaid that hospitality by murdering Bolton's household people.  Then Jon had the cheek to build an army of wildlings to assault the Boltons.  Jon had no right to do any of that. 

Share this post


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

There is no legal justification. Even if you did justify it with the Northern lords, if KL assembles a large enough army with good supply lines, veteran troops and good ships and sailors, along with a seasoned commander they'd still be fucked. To put it mildly. Though the chances of anyone caring are low. They have their own plots and ambitions, nothing to do with a frozen wasteland. 

 

7 minutes ago, Rondo said:

Jon Snow had no legal justification to send Mance Rayder to get and hide his sister from Ramsay Bolton. He ordered a sworn man of the watch to carry out an illegal mission.  Jon Snow had no legal justification to form an army of wildlings to assault the Boltons.  Jon had a lot to answer for because he sent his man, Mance Rayder, on a mission to get and bring his sister to the Wall.  Mance Rayder tricked the Boltons, was allowed shelter and given food.  Mance repaid that hospitality by murdering Bolton's household people.  Then Jon had the cheek to build an army of wildlings to assault the Boltons.  Jon had no right to do any of that. 

 

2 hours ago, Brynden"Bloodraven" Rivers said:

Jon Snow has a very strong legal justification to march on the Boltons of Winterfell. 

This is the official letter from Ramsay Bolton, the Lord of Winterfell to Lord Commander of the Night’s Watch, Jon Snow. The Lord of Winterfell, in this scenario, is a minor noble and has jurisdiction over the lands he has been allotted by the Warden of the North and the King of the Seven Kingdoms. Technically, only the King or the Warden of the North can directly oppose the Lord Commander or has direct jurisdiction over the Night’s Watch. Ramsay Bolton is neither. He is the son of the Warden of the North, but he holds no real power. He is legitimized by the Iron Throne, but that also gives him no authority. So Jon doesn’t have to answer to Ramsay at all. 

Second, there is also the matter of guest right. All the people Ramsay wants have guest right under the roof of Castle Black/Nightfort because they have consumed food at either Castle Black or the Nightfort which is under Jon’s domain. This means that they would either have to willingly go to Ramsay Bolton to be arrested (which only Stark haters would do) or Jon would have to arrest them which would violate guest right which is the most sacred of all Northern laws.

Third, Ramsay has no legal basis to attack Jon over the matter of a dead king’s daughter and wildling prisoners. These people have not overtly committed treason nor committed any crimes against the Iron Throne. So Jon was legally justified in attacking or defending himself against a Bolton attack,especially if it was led by Ramsay Bolton, a minor lord. 

 

Legal justification is a tricky thing. As @Lord Lannister says, in Westeros, might is often right. One major consequences of this is regime change. This is important because alliances and treaties are not often between realms in themselves, but between houses and organizations. Regime change offers the opportunity to break said alliances.

What legal claim does Tommen of house Baratheon have over the wall? What rules are they able to enforce over the wall? 

By all means the alliance the wall had with the realm of the seven kingdoms was with the realm of the Targaryens, Baratheon, and Starks. Not Lannister. When did the watch swear their loyalty to house Lannister? If they are sworn to any Baratheon, it is Stannis who is king. If they are sworn to any Stark it is Jon who is Robb's heir (or the rightful king if he is Rhaegar's son and Faegon is not). The Wall is part of their realm, not that of the seven kingdoms, no more than the iron islands are at this point, or Dorne was in the past. The Wall is Jon's.

The wall exists as a defense against the Others, not the wildings, but the realm of the south often calls upon the Nights Watch to fight off wildling incursion. Just as well, the Watch is not supposed to interfere with the quarrels of men and so are not to take part in the power struggles of the lords of Westeros. From these facts, I see two important takeaways. 1.) The king has no right to call upon the nights watch to fight its internal wars, including civil (ie the war with Stannis) 2.) The watch may join the quarrels of men if they are outside their own realm. Jon has a right to fight against Ramsey in either case.

And after the Red wedding what Right have the Boltons to Hospitality? All I've seen Mance and his girls kill are Freys and Boltons. If such a sacred right exists, it does not protect Them.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Rondo said:

Jon Snow had no legal justification to send Mance Rayder to get and hide his sister from Ramsay Bolton. He ordered a sworn man of the watch to carry out an illegal mission.  Jon Snow had no legal justification to form an army of wildlings to assault the Boltons.  Jon had a lot to answer for because he sent his man, Mance Rayder, on a mission to get and bring his sister to the Wall.  Mance Rayder tricked the Boltons, was allowed shelter and given food.  Mance repaid that hospitality by murdering Bolton's household people.  Then Jon had the cheek to build an army of wildlings to assault the Boltons.  Jon had no right to do any of that. 

He had the right of defense. Ramsay is a minor lordling and has no authority or precedent over the Nights watch. I concede that Jon should have chose a better course of action but he still had a legal justification, the right of self defense and the fact that he didn’t want to break guest right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Targaryeninkingslanding said:

And after the Red wedding what Right have the Boltons to Hospitality? All I've seen Mance and his girls kill are Freys and Boltons. If such a sacred right exists, it does not protect Them.

Actually, that is a very good point. I think @Rondoalso cited it but that is actually true. But if the Pink Letter is true, Mance is certainly getting his punishment for that crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Targaryeninkingslanding said:

 

 

 

Legal justification is a tricky thing. As @Lord Lannister says, in Westeros, might is often right. One major consequences of this is regime change. This is important because alliances and treaties are not often between realms in themselves, but between houses and organizations. Regime change offers the opportunity to break said alliances.

What legal claim does Tommen of house Baratheon have over the wall? What rules are they able to enforce over the wall? 

By all means the alliance the wall had with the realm of the seven kingdoms was with the realm of the Targaryens, Baratheon, and Starks. Not Lannister. When did the watch swear their loyalty to house Lannister? If they are sworn to any Baratheon, it is Stannis who is king. If they are sworn to any Stark it is Jon who is Robb's heir (or the rightful king if he is Rhaegar's son and Faegon is not). The Wall is part of their realm, not that of the seven kingdoms, no more than the iron islands are at this point, or Dorne was in the past. The Wall is Jon's.

The wall exists as a defense against the Others, not the wildings, but the realm of the south often calls upon the Nights Watch to fight off wildling incursion. Just as well, the Watch is not supposed to interfere with the quarrels of men and so are not to take part in the power struggles of the lords of Westeros. From these facts, I see two important takeaways. 1.) The king has no right to call upon the nights watch to fight its internal wars, including civil (ie the war with Stannis) 2.) The watch may join the quarrels of men if they are outside their own realm. Jon has a right to fight against Ramsey in either case.

And after the Red wedding what Right have the Boltons to Hospitality? All I've seen Mance and his girls kill are Freys and Boltons. If such a sacred right exists, it does not protect Them.

 

 

 

The Boltons and Freys committed treason, and the Freys breached guest right.  The regime in whose name they acted usurped power.  Jon provided military aid to the man with the most lawful claim to the Iron Throne.  So far as the law means anything, it’s on Jon’s side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, SeanF said:

The Boltons and Freys committed treason, and the Freys breached guest right.  The regime in whose name they acted usurped power.  Jon provided military aid to the man with the most lawful claim to the Iron Throne.  So far as the law means anything, it’s on Jon’s side.

In an ironic twist, Jon is essentially doing the opposite of what Stannis did during Robert's Rebellion. Stannis sided with a rebel lord (Robert) over the rightful king (Aerys), whereas now Jon is siding with the legitimate king (Stannis) over rebel lords (rebels to the Starks). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Targaryeninkingslanding said:

And after the Red wedding what Right have the Boltons to Hospitality? All I've seen Mance and his girls kill are Freys and Boltons. If such a sacred right exists, it does not protect Them.

So murdering frey children is right according to you. I can never agree with murdering children. 

Frey Bolton crimes. 

1) Broke guest right and murdered their fellow soliders. 

Mance Rayder(Jon) crimes

1) Broke guest right and murdered frey men. 

2) Murdered a child

Mance and his warriors are worse than freys or boltons. 

If a dog bites you on a road does that mean that you...? 

1 hour ago, WhatAnArtist! said:

In an ironic twist, Jon is essentially doing the opposite of what Stannis did during Robert's Rebellion. Stannis sided with a rebel lord (Robert) over the rightful king (Aerys), whereas now Jon is siding with the legitimate king (Stannis) over rebel lords (rebels to the Starks). 

There is no legitmate king for the nights watch.There shouldn't even be. 

3 hours ago, Brynden"Bloodraven" Rivers said:

He had the right of defense. Ramsay is a minor lordling and has no authority or precedent over the Nights watch. I concede that Jon should have chose a better course of action but he still had a legal justification, the right of self defense and the fact that he didn’t want to break guest right.

Jon drew first blood and was caught doing it. He did this knowing that if it fails it would not only mean death for him but could also land shireen, selyse and devan in the hands of the boltons. 

So he is at fault. 

6 hours ago, Brynden"Bloodraven" Rivers said:

(This is totally not a topic to draw out lines between the Stark haters and the normal people on this forum)

I'm not a stark hater 

This is not drawing lines between stark hater and normal people. This is drawing lines between jon snow fans and normal people

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Daenerysthegreat said:

So murdering frey children is right according to you. I can never agree with murdering children. 

Frey Bolton crimes. 

1) Broke guest right and murdered their fellow soliders. 

Mance Rayder(Jon) crimes

1) Broke guest right and murdered frey men. 

2) Murdered a child

Mance and his warriors are worse than freys or boltons. 

If a dog bites you on a road does that mean that you...? 

Little Walder was killed by big Walder. it is the one death Abel's girls expressly deny involvement in. And if you think none of those murdered at the red wedding were children you're lying to yourself. squires, pot boys, stable hands. Do you think there were no innocents killed when Ramsey took winterfell? he took only the women, most likely to rape. And don't forget it was Ramsey's idea to kill the two miller boys.

Why are Mance's men worse? they rape all the same so we can't say they are worse in that regard. The bastards boys do hunt women after they rape them though so they can be torn apart by dogs, so they got that going for them... 

58 minutes ago, Daenerysthegreat said:

There is no legitmate king for the nights watch.There shouldn't even be. 

Nights king reigned for 13 years. Kings beyond the wall arose aplenty. Legally Jon is the king in the North. if he is Rheagars son he has legal claim to the iron throne. Jon can be considered a claimant for all these positions. And If he was freed from his position by Robb's will (akin to Barristan), and lead only wildling, he would not be breaking anyones vows.

58 minutes ago, Daenerysthegreat said:

Jon drew first blood and was caught doing it. He did this knowing that if it fails it would not only mean death for him but could also land shireen, selyse and devan in the hands of the boltons. 

Ramsey drew first blood by demanding Jon's involvement in the war. that is what demanding Shireen meant if Stannis was dead, Jons involvement in the war, to hand over the enemy queen. If he must be in the war anyways, he has a right to decide how. 

Edited by Targaryeninkingslanding

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Daenerysthegreat said:

I'm not a stark hater 

This is not drawing lines between stark hater and normal people. This is drawing lines between jon snow fans and normal people

"Normal people." I think you mean to say, between Jon Snow fans and Jon Snow haters. your wording is kind of biased there, bud.

Share this post


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

There is no legitmate king for the nights watch.There shouldn't even be. 

The Night's Watch is still part of the Seven Kingdoms, so yes, there is such a thing as a legitimate king to them. And I'd say that Stannis is certainly that. Even if he wasn't by law - which he is - he earned it by being the only king to actually help the Night's Watch in a meaningful way. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Targaryeninkingslanding said:

Little Walder was killed by big Walder. it is the one death Abel's girls expressly deny involvement in. And if you think none of those murdered at the red wedding were children you're lying to yourself. squires, pot boys, stable hands. Do you think there were no innocents killed when Ramsey took winterfell? he took only the women, most likely to rape. And don't forget it was Ramsey's idea to kill the two miller boys.

Why are Mance's men worse? they rape all the same so we can't say they are worse in that regard. The bastards boys do hunt women after they rape them though so they can be torn apart by dogs, so they got that going for them... 

Nights king reigned for 13 years. Kings beyond the wall arose aplenty. Legally Jon is the king in the North. if he is Rheagars son he has legal claim to the iron throne. Jon can be considered a claimant for all these positions. And If he was freed from his position by Robb's will (akin to Barristan), and lead only wildling, he would not be breaking anyones vows.

Ramsey drew first blood by demanding Jon's involvement in the war. that is what demanding Shireen meant if Stannis was dead, Jons involvement in the war, to hand over the enemy queen. If he must be in the war anyways, he has a right to decide how. 

Ok i said it once I'll say it again. It doesn't matter if your guest or host is a cannibal, a rapist or a murderer. You cannot break guest right. It's a very sacred tradition. 

I'll ask you again

If a dog bites you do you bite the dog? 

Share this post


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

So murdering frey children is right according to you. I can never agree with murdering children. 

Frey Bolton crimes. 

1) Broke guest right and murdered their fellow soliders. 

Mance Rayder(Jon) crimes

1) Broke guest right and murdered frey men. 

2) Murdered a child

Mance and his warriors are worse than freys or boltons. 

If a dog bites you on a road does that mean that you...? 

There is no legitmate king for the nights watch.There shouldn't even be. 

Jon drew first blood and was caught doing it. He did this knowing that if it fails it would not only mean death for him but could also land shireen, selyse and devan in the hands of the boltons. 

So he is at fault. 

I'm not a stark hater 

This is not drawing lines between stark hater and normal people. This is drawing lines between jon snow fans and normal people

Who says Mance murdered children?

In addition, the Freys and Boltons committed treason, by murdering their liege lord and his mother. They continue to commit treason, by supporting a usurping regime in Kings Landing.  Ramsay and his "boys" are also serial murderers and rapists.

The King is the King.  Moreover, Stannis was the only claimant to offer aid to the Watch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, WhatAnArtist! said:

The Night's Watch is still part of the Seven Kingdoms, so yes, there is such a thing as a legitimate king to them. And I'd say that Stannis is certainly that. Even if he wasn't by law - which he is - he earned it by being the only king to actually help the Night's Watch in a meaningful way. 

It doesn't matter who helps the nights watch. They have to be neutral and not be seen taking sides in a civil war. And that's in normal circumstances. 

With the others army marching, they especially cannot be seen taking sides

Share this post


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

Ok i said it once I'll say it again. It doesn't matter if your guest or host is a cannibal, a rapist or a murderer. You cannot break guest right. It's a very sacred tradition. 

I'll ask you again

If a dog bites you do you bite the dog? 

You kill the dog. 

I think that once people have broken the most sacred of traditionas, they rather forfeit the right to be protected by that tradition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SeanF said:

Who says Mance murdered children?

In addition, the Freys and Boltons committed treason, by murdering their liege lord and his mother. They continue to commit treason, by supporting a usurping regime in Kings Landing.  Ramsay and his "boys" are also serial murderers and rapists.

The King is the King.  Moreover, Stannis was the only claimant to offer aid to the Watch.

It's evident. Who would murder little walder if not them? 

The freys and boltons being traitors doesn't justify breaking guest right. 

 

Share this post


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

You kill the dog. 

I think that once people have broken the most sacred of traditionas, they rather forfeit the right to be protected by that tradition.

No they dont

If these things continue the tradition of guest right will be broken forever. It happening once is enough for its value to decrease

It happening twice will destroy it. No one will be safe anymore 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Daenerysthegreat said:

Ok i said it once I'll say it again. It doesn't matter if your guest or host is a cannibal, a rapist or a murderer. You cannot break guest right. It's a very sacred tradition. 

I'll ask you again

If a dog bites you do you bite the dog? 

Okay, I suppose I'll write this again if I must. When you break a sacred law, like hospitality, you lose your own right to the same protection. 

You have disregard it. you cannot claim you still reasonably have it.

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.


×
×
  • Create New...