Did Jon Have a Say on Operation Arya Extraction?

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

On 3/8/2023 at 1:26 PM, Lord Varys said:

Go back to read the story.

Mance as Rattleshirt is specifically handed to Jon's care by Stannis. This is even reiterated later. And Rattleshirt-Mance even swears himself to Jon Snow. He is under his command now, and he acts under his command. Melisandre no longer has any sway over Rattleshirt-Mance and she knows that.

That is why Melisandre drops the glamor and reveals Mance's true identity to Jon. Because she wants to make a suggestion to him he then signs off on which then, in turn, will cause him to believe Mel can be relied on, is on his side, can be trusted.

Mel promises to Jon that Mance can bring back Arya safe, he believes her, and allows himself to be persuaded to send Mance and his women on their mission.

This whole thing only happened because he authorized it.

And it is clear that Mance already intended or thought he would have to infiltrate Winterfell because that's the sole reason why he asked for the women.

Ahh. Hello old friend. Glad to see you on the forum. If Stannis gave Mance to Jon, why then, is Mel giving Mance commands? She certainly has sway over Mance as you very well know yourself. 

Yes she drops the glamour because Jon is appalled at the idea of Rattleshirt going to pick up his sister. Mel certainly could send him anyway but it defeats the purpose because she is trying to get on Jon's good side. Once revealed it is Mance, Jon no longer refuses it, but it's not his idea, Mance is not his man & neither is Mel his woman. 

It doesn't matter what Mel promised to Jon, she only wanted his agreement to get him to trust her. She didn't need his agreement to carry out the plan.  

Mance & Mel may have had a different plan (infiltrating WF) but Jon certainly isn't involved in it. We heard the convo Mel, Mance & Jon have & it only refers to picking up Arya in the wilderness. Mance claims he needs the spearwives to get Arya to trust him & come along with him, which makes sense. I'm inclined to believe neither Mel or Jon knew Mance planned on infiltrating WF, but we won't know for sure until later. 

 

[Lord Varys]

6 minutes ago, Lyanna&lt;3Rhaegar said:

Ahh. Hello old friend. Glad to see you on the forum. If Stannis gave Mance to Jon, why then, is Mel giving Mance commands? She certainly has sway over Mance as you very well know yourself.

Mel doesn't give Mance commands as his liege lady. Mance signed himself over to Jon at Stannis' behest. He is his man and nothing you say is going to change the text. Melisandre has informal authority, but she is nobody's boss. She cannot just send Mance on mission against Jon's will - or without his knowledge.

6 minutes ago, Lyanna&lt;3Rhaegar said:

Yes she drops the glamour because Jon is appalled at the idea of Rattleshirt going to pick up his sister. Mel certainly could send him anyway but it defeats the purpose because she is trying to get on Jon's good side. Once revealed it is Mance, Jon no longer refuses it, but it's not his idea, Mance is not his man & neither is Mel his woman. 

No, she couldn't because Jon makes it clear he would kill him if she tried. And because he is Jon's man now. He would not go without Jon's permission.

6 minutes ago, Lyanna&lt;3Rhaegar said:

It doesn't matter what Mel promised to Jon, she only wanted his agreement to get him to trust her. She didn't need his agreement to carry out the plan.  

She did. That is why she looked for it. If she had had authority over Mance she could and would have send him out without Jon's permission and then she and Mance would have had Jon kiss Mel's feet in gratitude once Mance had returned to the Wall with a living Arya. I mean, think about it - why would Mel even approach Jon with this if she could have just had Mance go by her own authority? Including Jon into a mission that's no success yet could backfire - as it did, when vision girl turned out to be Alys not Arya - whereas a mission Jon would only learn when it was a success would be a welcome surprise.

6 minutes ago, Lyanna&lt;3Rhaegar said:

Mance & Mel may have had a different plan (infiltrating WF) but Jon certainly isn't involved in it. We heard the convo Mel, Mance & Jon have & it only refers to picking up Arya in the wilderness. Mance claims he needs the spearwives to get Arya to trust him & come along with him, which makes sense. I'm inclined to believe neither Mel or Jon knew Mance planned on infiltrating WF, but we won't know for sure until later.

Jon knows that Mance needs the women for a certain ploy. And the scene doesn't end where the chapter does. They would have talked more. And Jon would be an utter moron had he given Mance wildling women without actually asking or figuring out what he would use them for.

Mance's job is to save Arya Stark. If they find her on the road - fine. But from the start they obviously think there might be more to it than just that.

If Mance/Mel had had other plans then they would not have discussed them in Jon's presence, and Mance would have taken the women without Jon's leave.

We do Jon Snow a disservice if we dumb him down to the point that he doesn't know what Mance and Melisandre are doing there. We are also fooling ourselves if we pretend Jon gave a rat's ass about guest right and Watch neutrality when the life and well-being of his beloved little sister was at stake. He makes that pretty clear in his POV. When Alys shows up he thinks Mel and Mance fucked with him, made him believe it was Arya when they know or suspected it was not so they could convince him to allow them Mance could do a mission that had nothing to do with Arya.

But that's wrong as we well know.

[Hugorfonics]

6 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

So I agree. He could have said no & actually did when he thought it was ole bag of bones going after Arya. I think the question is does that make him culpable? 

I think not. He didn't give any commands to Mance, Mance isn't his man, Mel did not ask Jon's permission (though she was trying to get him to trust her by doing this so it would have been pointless if Jon was against it) nor is Mance or Mel under Jon's command. 

I agree he could punish Mance for desserting & maybe should have but it's an odd situation right? Because up until 5 seconds before that Jon thought Mance was punished, he put an arrow in him. I don't think it would have been within Jon's rights to execute Mance once he found out he was alive because he was, by then, under Stans command. The only person in the realm who came to the aid of the watch when they asked for help. It would have been detrimental to the watch for Jon to piss Stannis off that bad. 

 Hello Lyanna!

Mance swore to serve the NW for the rest of his life, so his lord commander is Jon and under his leadership. Realistically it's not like Mance, Bloodraven and probably Benjin have to listen or do listen to Jon because I guess they don't want to but technically with the laws of the NW, the boss is Jon.

I don't think Stannis would really wild out over a dead Mance, it's not like he gave Jon specific instructions to keep him safe or anything, if anything he thinks he executed him. But I don't think a dead Mance would do anybody good, like yes he's dangerous and disloyal and kinda a ticking time bomb but he also knows the enemy more then anyone and that could be invaluable. That he's now Mel's slave is, probably not great.

Culpable for what though? Trying to look out for his sister and screw over Ramsay, what's the harm? That Mance isn't ordered to go out ranging or patrol the wall or defrosting the staircase but is sent south to more or less do him, is what Yoren and Sam did as well. So clearly the job of the NW isn't just restricted to the wall, that kidnapping a princess is within the duty of the NW is kinda pushing it, but whatever.

Its definitely a breach of neutrality though, which the NW is supposed to not do, but Jon broke that earlier anyway when he told Stannis not to march on Dreadfort. But that's a Westerosi law and not a NW law for whatever that's worth.

[three-eyed monkey]

To begin with, Stannis knew about the switch with Rattleshirt. It really had to be his idea. Stannis sees value in Mance, he knows much about the true enemy and he is the only man who can bind the wildlings to the king's cause, which is what Stannis wants to do. He has motive to keep Mance alive.

The penalty for an oathbreaker is death, and we see this in the very first chapter, so Mance should be executed by the laws of the Seven Kingdoms. Stannis likes to portray that he is a lawful king, laws should be made of iron not pudding, etc. This created a dilemma for Stannis because he wanted to keep Mance alive. Then Jon told him that the laws of men end at the Wall. This solved the dilemma for Stannis, in his mind at least. He had Mel use her magic to make the switch and then burned Rattleshirt north of the Wall, clearly seeing the location as a sort of loophole in the law, to appease those calling for Mance's head as an oathbreaker.

This was confirmed when Mel told Jon that Mance owed him his life, because the king is not a man to go against the law, meaning Mance should have been executed, but it was Jon's advice that saved him, that advice being that the law ends at the Wall.

Stannis then gave Rattleshirt, who was really Mance, over to Jon's care. He didn't tell Jon it was really Mance. Stannis just wanted Jon to take care of Mance because he had further need of him, and was happy to let Jon believe it was Rattleshirt. Once the person Jon thinks is Rattleshirt is taken care of, then Stannis is happy, because that's the person he will have need of in the future.

Mance is not one to take orders. His knees don't bend easily. He never learned to obey. That's why Stannis is keeping his son hostage, to keep Mance in line. I don't buy the idea that Mance is willing to take orders from Jon or Stannis. He left the Watch for a place where a man could wear whatever cloak he chose and where a kiss was not a crime. He doesn't accept Jon as his Lord Commander. He doesn't accept Stannis, who expects his subjects to kneel, as his king.

Mance was forced to play along when he was captured but he still has his own agenda, and that is getting the free folk south of the Wall and keeping them there long enough to ride out the coming winter. Mance is a peacemaker, he spent years making peace between the different clans and tribes of wildlings. If he wants to keep the Wall between his people and the Others then he is going to have to make peace with the north or else go the way of every other king-beyond-the-wall who ever came south. And considering that Winterfell is the heart of the north, the seat of northern power, then we can see why Mance would want to infiltrate Winterfell given the chance.

Jon only learned Mance was alive when Mel dropped the glamour. Jon wanted someone to go and retrieve Arya, who he feared might be the girl fleeing a wedding. That wouldn't be unlike her. Mel also thinks this girl must be Jon's sister, and she thinks if Mance brings her back, Jon will start to trust her. Mel needs Jon to accept her plan, because he's the one Stannis told to keep the person Jon thought was Rattleshirt safe. Setting "Rattleshirt" loose behind Jon's back is hardly a good way to win his trust.

Meanwhile Mance already had his Bael the Bard ploy in mind, so he was definitely planning on infiltrating Winterfell at that stage. Even if he found Arya at Long Lake or wherever, then I think he would have sent her back to Castle Black but continued on his way to Winterfell. I think he purposefully stayed behind in Winterfell after the rescue of Jeyne, because he's not completed what he went there to do yet.

I don't know if Jon questioned the ploy or not off-screen? He may have just arranged what Mance said he needed. But even if Jon asked, what might Mance have told him? That Arya may not have fled the wedding yet so he might have to steal her from Winterfell. If that scenario was put to Jon then I think he would have found it hard to say no, given his love for Arya. So maybe it was easier for Jon not to ask, given that he is skeptical about Mel's visions. Jon must have suspected there was a chance that Arya was in Winterfell, and not on the road on a dying horse, because he thinks Roose Bolton would not be careless with such a prize.

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

16 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Mel doesn't give Mance commands as his liege lady. Mance signed himself over to Jon at Stannis' behest. He is his man and nothing you say is going to change the text. Melisandre has informal authority, but she is nobody's boss. She cannot just send Mance on mission against Jon's will - or without his knowledge.

Where in the text does it say Mance is Jon's to command? 

She can send Mance on a mission against his will, she planned on doing just that. The singular reason she didn't is because she wants Jon to trust her, not because she cannot command Mance to go. 

16 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

No, she couldn't because Jon makes it clear he would kill him if she tried. And because he is Jon's man now. He would not go without Jon's permission.

He isn't Jon's man now, he is taking orders from Mel, clearly. Jon did not approach Mel & Mance with the idea to go rescue Arya from the woods, twas the other way around. I don't know if Mance would go without Jon's permission (I think he had another agenda so he may have) but Mel certainly isn't going to send him with out Jon's approval, not permission. She doesn't ask his permission, she tells him what she is going to do. He doesn't want rattleshirt going for his sister & so he says he will kill him if he does. Once he sees it's Mance he is ok with it. He allows it, he doesn't refuse it, he even helps a little but he does not have the command here, this isn't his mission it's Mel & Mances. 

 

17 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

She did. That is why she looked for it. If she had had authority over Mance she could and would have send him out without Jon's permission and then she and Mance would have had Jon kiss Mel's feet in gratitude once Mance had returned to the Wall with a living Arya. I mean, think about it - why would Mel even approach Jon with this if she could have just had Mance go by her own authority? Including Jon into a mission that's no success yet could backfire - as it did, when vision girl turned out to be Alys not Arya - whereas a mission Jon would only learn when it was a success would be a welcome surprise.

She didn't look for Jon's authority. Show me where she asked for Jon's permission or authority for the mission. Of course she isn't going to send him with out Jon's ok, she wants his approval so he will trust her. 

I imagine Mel told him about the whole thing because he would have seen Rattleshirt leaving & inquired about it. Mel could lie I suppose but why? 

You answered your own question - why didn't Mel just send Mance to rescue Arya as a surprise to Jon? Because the mission has not had success, it has backfired, the vision turned out not to be Arya. What happens when they try to surprise Jon & then the letter comes from Ramsay? Not a good plot IMO. 

17 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Jon knows that Mance needs the women for a certain ploy. And the scene doesn't end where the chapter does. They would have talked more. And Jon would be an utter moron had he given Mance wildling women without actually asking or figuring out what he would use them for.

Mance gave Jon a perfectly plausible reason for taking the spearwives, we have Jon's inner thoughts, he doesn't think he is up to something else. The scene may not end where the chapter does but that's just speculation. All we know for sure is what is said. He literally told Jon what he needed them for, I'm confused by this comment. 

17 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Mance's job is to save Arya Stark. If they find her on the road - fine. But from the start they obviously think there might be more to it than just that.

How is it obvious "they" think there might be more to it than that? Maybe it's obvious to Mance or Mel but they don't say it, Jon certainly doesn't think so. 

17 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

If Mance/Mel had had other plans then they would not have discussed them in Jon's presence, and Mance would have taken the women without Jon's leave.

You're just making things up now. It's possible & quite likely, IMO that they did have other plans, did discuss them not in front of Jon & only told Jon the part about rescuing fArya. 

17 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

We do Jon Snow a disservice if we dumb him down to the point that he doesn't know what Mance and Melisandre are doing there. We are also fooling ourselves if we pretend Jon gave a rat's ass about guest right and Watch neutrality when the life and well-being of his beloved little sister was at stake. He makes that pretty clear in his POV. When Alys shows up he thinks Mel and Mance fucked with him, made him believe it was Arya when they know or suspected it was not so they could convince him to allow them Mance could do a mission that had nothing to do with Arya.

But that's wrong as we well know.

The only one insisting this is dumbing Jon down (something you don't usually have an issue with at all) is you. Show me the text or the context clues that lead you to believe Jon knew Mel/Mance planned on infiltrating WF. Show me the text or context clues Mel/Mance had a plan to infiltrate WF. They probably did but they didn't say it, there is not one reason for Jon to think it until he receives the PL & he didn't get much time to reflect on that before he was stabbed. 

You're contradicting the text. We know he cares about guests right & the Watch neutrality when the life & well-being of his sister was at stake, because he knew she was married to Ramsay, he knew what & who Ramsay is. He knew Ramsay overtook his fathers home. If he could not control him self or didn't care about Watch neutrality why didn't he run right off to rescue her then? Why did he wait until Mel threw a plan in his lap? 

Show me in his POV where he makes this clear. 

The girl on the gray horse? I'm talking about Jeyne, fArya. Not Alys. I don't recall him thinking Mel & Mance were fucking with him. Iirc he commented on the unreliability of Mel's visions. Maybe I forgot it but would be interested in that text as well. 

 

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

11 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

 Hello Lyanna!

Hello Hugor! Hope this finds you well

11 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Mance swore to serve the NW for the rest of his life, so his lord commander is Jon and under his leadership. Realistically it's not like Mance, Bloodraven and probably Benjin have to listen or do listen to Jon because I guess they don't want to but technically with the laws of the NW, the boss is Jon.

I agree, it's just that this isn't a typical circumstance. Jon was prepared to kill Mance & actually thought he did, ya know? 

I shouldn't have said it wasn't within Jon's right, it was. There is just more to it than that. He has more to consider at that point then just whether or not he should kill a desserter. 

 

11 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

I don't think Stannis would really wild out over a dead Mance, it's not like he gave Jon specific instructions to keep him safe or anything, if anything he thinks he executed him. But I don't think a dead Mance would do anybody good, like yes he's dangerous and disloyal and kinda a ticking time bomb but he also knows the enemy more then anyone and that could be invaluable. That he's now Mel's slave is, probably not great.

Yeah, I think Stannis's response would depend on why he allowed him to live. If he felt it an important mission (and I think he must have because it's totally out of character for Stan to allow a desserter to live, let alone the infamous Mance Rayder. That's all speculation on my part though. 

I agree it was a good decision to keep Mance alive. 

How would Mel have reacted? Not that Jon was probably worried about that but just wondering. Mel has a hold of Stan's ear pretty tightly, she may have convinced Stan Jon was a trader & needed executed for it. 

Definitely not good that he is Mel's slave. She's tricksy. 

11 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Culpable for what though? Trying to look out for his sister and screw over Ramsay, what's the harm? That Mance isn't ordered to go out ranging or patrol the wall or defrosting the staircase but is sent south to more or less do him, is what Yoren and Sam did as well. So clearly the job of the NW isn't just restricted to the wall, that kidnapping a princess is within the duty of the NW is kinda pushing it, but whatever.

[Lord Varys]

@Lyanna<3Rhaegar

I'm honestly done discussing this topic right now. It is reiterated again and again in ADwD that Mance-Rattleshirt is given to Jon's jurisdiction by Stannis, and the man himself actually swears that he is Jon's man now.

Mance never was nor is he Melisandre's man in this way. Any claim to the contrary goes against the text as published.

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

11 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Culpable for what though? Trying to look out for his sister and screw over Ramsay, what's the harm? That Mance isn't ordered to go out ranging or patrol the wall or defrosting the staircase but is sent south to more or less do him, is what Yoren and Sam did as well. So clearly the job of the NW isn't just restricted to the wall, that kidnapping a princess is within the duty of the NW is kinda pushing it, but whatever.

Hit reply too soon. 

Culpable for the downfall of the watch, is he guilty of breaking his vows? I don't think so but either way I say eff those vows & eff Ramsay. He never would've sent Mance or Rattleshirt out patrolling anyway, they couldn't be trusted but agreed, the job of the NW isn't restricted to the wall. 

Haha! Right & they did kind of kidnap a princess. But Jon didn't. Jon thought they were going to rescue an already fleeing Arya. Not saying it would have changed his mind if he knew but as far as we know, he didn't. 

 

11 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Its definitely a breach of neutrality though, which the NW is supposed to not do, but Jon broke that earlier anyway when he told Stannis not to march on Dreadfort. But that's a Westerosi law and not a NW law for whatever that's worth.

Is giving Stannis military advice a breach of neutrality though? When Stannis is at the wall to help the NW? It seems the least Jon can do is give some good advice. 

It's a murky thing I think. The NW (as far as i know) doesn't specify what is breaching neutrality specifically & what isn't. Some things would be obvious but this isn't, at least to me. 

And what are the rules regarding defending the NW from rogue lords? I would assume they have every right to defend themselves & since Ramsay is holding WF & previously fArya by deceit the whole thing isn't legal anyway, so I don't know how kidnapping his bride is illegal. Either way though, Jon didn 't kidnap anyone or sign off on that plan. 

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

2 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

@Lyanna<3Rhaegar

I'm honestly done discussing this topic right now. It is reiterated again and again in ADwD that Mance-Rattleshirt is given to Jon's jurisdiction by Stannis, and the man himself actually swears that he is Jon's man now.

Mance never was nor is he Melisandre's man in this way. Any claim to the contrary goes against the text as published.

No worries, no one will try to make you continue to discuss. It isn't reiterated again & again or a few quotes wouldn't be very hard to come up with. 

Mance is absolutely, at least partly, Mel's man. She probably talked Stan into not burning him & doing RS in his stead for this very reason - so he could be her man & she could use him as sees fit. He is literally bound to her via her glamour or whatever. We have no idea how deep that binding goes but we know it's there. So yeah, definitely Mel's man

[sweetsunray]

On 3/8/2023 at 7:19 PM, Hugorfonics said:

Why would Stannis be in on this ruse? 

Quote

"Who else, my lord? Only his life's blood could pay for his crimes, your laws said, and Stannis Baratheon is not a man to go against the law … but as you said so sagely, the laws of men end at the Wall. [...]" (aDwD, Melisandre)

Mel cites an argument that Jon made to Stannis in aDwD, Jon I in favor of sparing Mance's life. We can be certain that Mel doesn't give a fig about the laws of Westeros. She's purely Machiavellan. The sole one who cares about that rigidly is Stannis. And in the quote I cited, Mel claims that was the argument that saved Mance's life, and persuaded Stannis to swap Mance for Rattleshirt. 

[Springwatch]

Quote

When the flames had licked at Rattleshirt, the ruby at her throat had grown so hot that she had feared her own flesh might start to smoke and blacken. Thankfully Lord Snow had delivered her from that agony with his arrows. While Stannis had seethed at the defiance, she had shuddered with relief.

Stannis is mad about justice. He wanted Mance dead. Mel had to go against him.

[Hugorfonics]

48 minutes ago, Lyanna&lt;3Rhaegar said:

Hello Hugor! Hope this finds you well

Thank You

49 minutes ago, Lyanna&lt;3Rhaegar said:

I agree, it's just that this isn't a typical circumstance. Jon was prepared to kill Mance & actually thought he did, ya know? 

I shouldn't have said it wasn't within Jon's right, it was. There is just more to it than that. He has more to consider at that point then just whether or not he should kill a desserter.

Right hes got the wellbeing of his sister to thin of too, plus Stannis

50 minutes ago, Lyanna&lt;3Rhaegar said:

Yeah, I think Stannis's response would depend on why he allowed him to live. If he felt it an important mission (and I think he must have because it's totally out of character for Stan to allow a desserter to live, let alone the infamous Mance Rayder. That's all speculation on my part though. 

I cant imagine Stannis being in on it, especially since he apparently didnt give Mance any political mission but just told him to be Melisandres servant

52 minutes ago, Lyanna&lt;3Rhaegar said:

How would Mel have reacted? Not that Jon was probably worried about that but just wondering. Mel has a hold of Stan's ear pretty tightly, she may have convinced Stan Jon was a trader & needed executed for it. 

Its possible I guess, but Jon has stood tall in the front of Lighbringer before, and Stannis backed down after realizing that even if Jon isnt perfect for him, hes still workable.

48 minutes ago, Lyanna&lt;3Rhaegar said:

Culpable for the downfall of the watch,

I dont think thats really fare. Kinda accurate but a little mean. Thats like saying Ned was culpable for the downfall of Roberts govt. Did he do his best to help it, yea Id say so. Did he probably do more harm then good, yea maybe actually. Was it fundamentally fucked from inception and only deteriorated further into abyss, so that not even the azor ahai that was promised could fix it, but of course.

53 minutes ago, Lyanna&lt;3Rhaegar said:

is he guilty of breaking his vows? I don't think so but either way I say eff those vows & eff Ramsay. He never would've sent Mance or Rattleshirt out patrolling anyway, they couldn't be trusted but agreed, the job of the NW isn't restricted to the wall. 

(They got Mances kid and that ruby stuff so itd probably be alright, except i guess they dont have his kid so it probably wouldnt be alright)
I agree hes not guilty of breaking his vows, but he is guilty of breaking the law. Which means hes probably still got the keycode to the Old Door but definitely overriding the status quo.

57 minutes ago, Lyanna&lt;3Rhaegar said:

Haha! Right & they did kind of kidnap a princess. But Jon didn't. Jon thought they were going to rescue an already fleeing Arya. Not saying it would have changed his mind if he knew but as far as we know, he didn't. 

Right he thought itd be an easier job, and maybe one that doesn't breach any guest rights protocol but its still Ramsays legal spouse being abducted on the Kingsroad, so its kinda sketchy. This is obviously painting it in a pro Ramsay light but its more in terms with the regulars of Westeros I think. Like Alys came to him, his house, so she was a guest and Jon didnt breech any protocol in that situation.

1 hour ago, Lyanna&lt;3Rhaegar said:

Is giving Stannis military advice a breach of neutrality though? When Stannis is at the wall to help the NW? It seems the least Jon can do is give some good advice. 

It's a murky thing I think. The NW (as far as i know) doesn't specify what is breaching neutrality specifically & what isn't. Some things would be obvious but this isn't, at least to me. 

I dont see how Jon can spin this into not picking sides, lots of advice some unsolicited, going from ways of attack to loyalty of northern lords to the recruitment of the entire northern clans. I agree supplying the king with food and swords and castles is murky but the advice given to Stannis is nothing but antagonistic to the IT and the Iron Islands.

1 hour ago, Lyanna&lt;3Rhaegar said:

And what are the rules regarding defending the NW from rogue lords?

Legally? Die.

1 hour ago, Lyanna&lt;3Rhaegar said:

I would assume they have every right to defend themselves

Yorens crew was repeatedly attacked by Lannister men and while Yoren didnt choose to play possum, his attackers couldnt care less that he was a neutral party.
And you know I kinda understand why the slaves of the NW must bow before all man, because they rely on all man and are kinda too powerful to no be fully submissive. Imagine the NW on strike? 
Bad example here because of its ridiculousness and the fact that Braavos isnt in the 7, but lets say those two scallywags in affc picked a fight with the wrong fat man, what if Sam slayed those two bavvados and started some global crisis that the NW is definitely too busy to look it. Its safer to tell the crows to just die.

1 hour ago, Lyanna&lt;3Rhaegar said:

since Ramsay is holding WF & previously fArya by deceit the whole thing isn't legal anyway, so I don't know how kidnapping his bride is illegal. Either way though, Jon didn 't kidnap anyone or sign off on that plan. 

Jon doesnt know that though, and when a high lord breaks the law its just another Thursday.
Jon doesnt know exactly, agreed. And hed probably be not cool with what Mance was doing but he was smart enough to not ask questions he didnt want the answers too and still sent his man on his behalf to represent him. Right, like the bucks gotta stop somewhere

 

1 hour ago, sweetsunray said:

Mel cites an argument that Jon made to Stannis in aDwD, Jon I in favor of sparing Mance's life. We can be certain that Mel doesn't give a fig about the laws of Westeros. She's purely Machiavellan. The sole one who cares about that rigidly is Stannis. And in the quote I cited, Mel claims that was the argument that saved Mance's life, and persuaded Stannis to swap Mance for Rattleshir

Thats like some Davos like politicking and while I agree he, like Mel can be Machiavelli, Stannis i think will remain rigid, in his own political way

Quote

"I have spent hours speaking with the man. He knows much and more of our true enemy, and there is cunning in him, I'll grant you. Even if he were to renounce his kingship, though, the man remains an oathbreaker. Suffer one deserter to live, and you encourage others to desert. No. Laws should be made of iron, not of pudding. Mance Rayder's life is forfeit by every law of the Seven Kingdoms."

"The law ends at the Wall, Your Grace. You could make good use of Mance."

"I mean to. I'll burn him, and the north will see how I deal with turncloaks and traitors. I have other men to lead the wildlings. And I have Rayder's son, do not forget. Once the father dies, his whelp will be the King-Beyond-the-Wall."

Its basically what the Pink Letter says, Stannis' laws are bullshit, this dudes a phony. Its not a great political message for a tyrant. 
Then he starts to go off the chain talking about the Prince Beyond the Wall like thats a thing, but nobodys perfect

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

54 minutes ago, Springwatch said:

Stannis is mad about justice. He wanted Mance dead. Mel had to go against him.

I read this like Stannis was mad that Jon put an arrow in Mance. 

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

50 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Right hes got the wellbeing of his sister to thin of too, plus Stannis

Yeah, he is in a precarious situation. 

51 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

I cant imagine Stannis being in on it, especially since he apparently didnt give Mance any political mission but just told him to be Melisandres servant

You could be exactly right. If he didn't have a hand in saving Mance he certainly wouldn't care if Jon killed him, but Jon may have assumed that Stannis did know because Mel is his right hand ma...uh Mel. LOL 

52 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Its possible I guess, but Jon has stood tall in the front of Lighbringer before, and Stannis backed down after realizing that even if Jon isnt perfect for him, hes still workable

Indeed. 

53 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

I dont think thats really fare. Kinda accurate but a little mean. Thats like saying Ned was culpable for the downfall of Roberts govt. Did he do his best to help it, yea Id say so. Did he probably do more harm then good, yea maybe actually. Was it fundamentally fucked from inception and only deteriorated further into abyss, so that not even the azor ahai that was promised could fix it, but of course.

I sorta agree. I don't think it's fair either, the watch was already shit. Jon did the best he could, also agreed. I don't know if he did more harm than good though. That's a tough one. He definitely has made some stupid mistakes but some of this stuff was out of his control (the wildlings, fArya, Ramsay etc) he didn't create those scenarios, he only responded to them. I agree he doesn't always respond in the best way though. 

56 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

(They got Mances kid and that ruby stuff so itd probably be alright, except i guess they dont have his kid so it probably wouldnt be alright)
I agree hes not guilty of breaking his vows, but he is guilty of breaking the law. Which means hes probably still got the keycode to the Old Door but definitely overriding the status quo.

Definitely. I wish we knew how exactly the ruby ties Mance to Mel. Is it merely glamour? I think there is a line in the books that makes it sound like more than that but I can't remember. I'll try to find it. 

Not disagreeing but what laws has he broken? I'm sure there are plenty, just none coming to mind right now. 

 

57 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Right he thought itd be an easier job, and maybe one that doesn't breach any guest rights protocol but its still Ramsays legal spouse being abducted on the Kingsroad, so its kinda sketchy. This is obviously painting it in a pro Ramsay light but its more in terms with the regulars of Westeros I think. Like Alys came to him, his house, so she was a guest and Jon didnt breech any protocol in that situation.

Yes, this exactly. It's illegal to kidnap her  because it's Ramsay's legal spouse but presumably illegal of Ramsay to take her to wed under a false name. Totally sketchy. I agree with everything said here. It does paint it in a little of a Pro-Ramsay light but as you said the truth of the matter, at least legally in Westeros, is Pro-Ramsay. 

59 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Legally? Die.

 

1 hour ago, Hugorfonics said:

Yorens crew was repeatedly attacked by Lannister men and while Yoren didnt choose to play possum, his attackers couldnt care less that he was a neutral party.
And you know I kinda understand why the slaves of the NW must bow before all man, because they rely on all man and are kinda too powerful to no be fully submissive. Imagine the NW on strike? 

For sure. The rules are shitty rules but are put in place for a purpose. The NW on strike right now would not be a good thing for Westeros. Not that the silly shits seem to care or pay any attention. Jon's hollering from the Wall that the dead are walking & everyone sans Stan in Westeros just ignore it. Come to think of it, maybe they should go on strike 

 

1 hour ago, Hugorfonics said:

Bad example here because of its ridiculousness and the fact that Braavos isnt in the 7, but lets say those two scallywags in affc picked a fight with the wrong fat man, what if Sam slayed those two bavvados and started some global crisis that the NW is definitely too busy to look it. Its safer to tell the crows to just die.

For sure, I get ya. 

1 hour ago, Hugorfonics said:

Jon doesnt know that though, and when a high lord breaks the law its just another Thursday.
Jon doesnt know exactly, agreed. And hed probably be not cool with what Mance was doing but he was smart enough to not ask questions he didnt want the answers too and still sent his man on his behalf to represent him. Right, like the bucks gotta stop somewhere

Oh yeah, Jon doesn't know, but we do. Yes, definitely smart enough to not ask questions. 

I'm gonna pick on ya about calling Mance Jon's "man" because I always give Lord Varys shit about it, so I'm only being fair 

 

No really though, yes he is Jon's man, a man of the NW, albeit one who desserted. But he is also Mel's man right? The two of them came up with this hairbrained idea to begin with & presented it to Jon, Jon didn't command it. I think the buck for this particular thing stops at all 3 of them. I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing though. 

 

1 hour ago, Hugorfonics said:

dont see how Jon can spin this into not picking sides, lots of advice some unsolicited, going from ways of attack to loyalty of northern lords to the recruitment of the entire northern clans. I agree supplying the king with food and swords and castles is murky but the advice given to Stannis is nothing but antagonistic to the IT and the Iron Islands.

Yeah he is in a pickle. It is antagonistic to the IT but if the IT doesn't know about the advise it's pretty harmless right? 

1 hour ago, Hugorfonics said:

 

 

[Hugorfonics]

1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I read this like Stannis was mad that Jon put an arrow in Mance. 

I think she was using mad in like the British term not in the darn it way. But I agree that Stannis did seem a little peeved that the guy didn't burn to death which is kinda, not cool 

55 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Yeah, he is in a precarious situation. 

Yea definitely

55 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

You could be exactly right. If he didn't have a hand in saving Mance he certainly wouldn't care if Jon killed him, but Jon may have assumed that Stannis did know because Mel is his right hand ma...uh Mel. LOL

Lol close enough.

Yea for sure, but in that case Jon could play dumb, and act like he didn't suspect Stannis being in on it, which I don't think he actually does lol

55 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I sorta agree. I don't think it's fair either, the watch was already shit. Jon did the best he could, also agreed. I don't know if he did more harm than good though. That's a tough one. He definitely has made some stupid mistakes but some of this stuff was out of his control (the wildlings, fArya, Ramsay etc) he didn't create those scenarios, he only responded to them. I agree he doesn't always respond in the best way though. 

I mean, I agree with his decisions which is like a contrast to Dany who generally upset me in adwd but that's also because I want Danys govt to succeed where are as I want Jon's to lose.

Not that I want the Others to win or anything but I also don't want to see Jon stuck in this system that's clearly rigged for abuse and failure.

55 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Definitely. I wish we knew how exactly the ruby ties Mance to Mel. Is it merely glamour? I think there is a line in the books that makes it sound like more than that but I can't remember. I'll try to find it. 

Yea for sure, is she controlling him like a marionette or a Gameboy? Or is it maybe like the ring of power and she's some type of drug

55 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Not disagreeing but what laws has he broken? I'm sure there are plenty, just none coming to mind right now. 

I mean to me it's just the laws of neutrality, and for sure words are wind if you wanna by cynical but asking a roomful of crows and wildlings to ride on Ramsay isn't neutral. 

(It's the obvious move and frankly the only correct move, something Yoren would probably do, but it's nevertheless the Wall marching on the 7 kingdoms)

55 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Yes, this exactly. It's illegal to kidnap her  because it's Ramsay's legal spouse but presumably illegal of Ramsay to take her to wed under a false name. Totally sketchy. I agree with everything said here. It does paint it in a little of a Pro-Ramsay light but as you said the truth of the matter, at least legally in Westeros, is Pro-Ramsay. 

Yea exactly and while these customs and rules and regulations sound just as if not more so awful then the NW ones, the solution of abolishing Jons guilt isn't impossible, kill Ramsay lol. That should legally put Westeros back on the right track lol, well in this situation.

55 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

For sure. The rules are shitty rules but are put in place for a purpose. The NW on strike right now would not be a good thing for Westeros. Not that the silly shits seem to care or pay any attention. Jon's hollering from the Wall that the dead are walking & everyone sans Stan in Westeros just ignore it. Come to think of it, maybe they should go on strike 

Yea exactly lol. They don't have the right tools for the job and are clearly overworked and undermanned. If they take the next season off of work the entire realm, possibly world, will come with stimulus' and government bail outs. Who knew CB only needed a union? Lol

55 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Oh yeah, Jon doesn't know, but we do.

Yea it's definitely a stretch to say Ramsay is legally wed, because that's not even Arya but at the same time it's kinda a stretch to say it's illigal because Theon acted as Ned's stand in and verified her id

55 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I'm gonna pick on ya about calling Mance Jon's "man" because I always give Lord Varys shit about it, so I'm only being fair 

 

No really though, yes he is Jon's man, a man of the NW, albeit one who desserted. But he is also Mel's man right? The two of them came up with this hairbrained idea to begin with & presented it to Jon, Jon didn't command it. I think the buck for this particular thing stops at all 3 of them. I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing though. 

Mel or Stannis if you'd like but I think it's just her, definitely commands some type of loyalty by saving his life and claiming to babysit his kid and gave him some like heroin/video game controller in the form of a ruby. So I agree the buck does stop there as well. 

That Mance like 20 years ago before Jon was born and another lifetime away, he swore some words to a man now dead that he'd follow the LC till he died, and then sometime later betrayed the entirety of that oath. So not super convincing lol. But theres also this

Quote

I have a gift for you, Lord Snow." The king waved a hand at Rattleshirt. "Him."

Lady Melisandre smiled. "You did say you wanted men, Lord Snow. I believe our Lord of Bones still qualifies."

Jon was aghast. "Your Grace, this man cannot be trusted. If I keep him here, someone will slit his throat for him. If I send him ranging, he'll just go back over to the wildlings."

"Not me. I'm done with those bloody fools." Rattleshirt tapped the ruby on his wrist. "Ask your red witch, bastard."

Melisandre spoke softly in a strange tongue. The ruby at her throat throbbed slowly, and Jon saw that the smaller stone on Rattleshirt's wrist was brightening and darkening as well. "So long as he wears the gem he is bound to me, blood and soul," the red priestess said. "This man will serve you faithfully. The flames do not lie, Lord Snow."

Perhaps not, Jon thought, but you do.

"I'll range for you, bastard," Rattleshirt declared. "I'll give you sage counsel or sing you pretty songs, as you prefer. I'll even fight for you. Just don't ask me to wear your cloak."

You are not worthy of one, Jon thought, but he held his tongue. No good would come of squabbling before the king.

So here Mance is spilling his guts to Jon and while Jon's playing it cool and like pretending to look at his phone or something, that was the time to be like " I don't want them" but by not declining the gift, it's now his. 

Of course the point can be made like Ramsay's legal wife Arya that this isn't legal at all because even if somebody verified their ID, they didn't notarize it.

55 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Yeah he is in a pickle. It is antagonistic to the IT but if the IT doesn't know about the advise it's pretty harmless right?

Lol I like the way your thinking, but not even Cersei is that stupid. Stannis is repeatedly dodging ambushes and recruiting the locals like he has a tour guide, who is probably in the form and shape of Ned's bastard. That she was gonna think this no matter what is I suppose a coincidence 

[sweetsunray]

2 hours ago, Springwatch said:

Stannis is mad about justice. He wanted Mance dead. Mel had to go against him.

He needed a loophole. He saw value in Mance as well. He needed a legal argument, and Jon gave him that.

[Springwatch]

29 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

He needed a loophole. He saw value in Mance as well. He needed a legal argument, and Jon gave him that.

2 hours ago, Lyanna&lt;3Rhaegar said:

I read this like Stannis was mad that Jon put an arrow in Mance. 

I meant Stannis is obsessed with justice, the result being he put 'Mance' in a fire and expected him to burn to death. In his view justice demands that crimes be punished - abandoning the Watch certainly, maybe being king of a defeated invasion force also. Rattleshirt was none of those things. The Wildling commanders weren't punished if they accepted the deal offered.

[sweetsunray]

7 minutes ago, Springwatch said:

I meant Stannis is obsessed with justice, the result being he put 'Mance' in a fire and expected him to burn to death. In his view justice demands that crimes be punished - abandoning the Watch certainly, maybe being king of a defeated invasion force also. Rattleshirt was none of those things. The Wildling commanders weren't punished if they accepted the deal offered.

And I meant that Stannis knew "Mance" was Rattleshirt, and needed a legal loophole, which Jon offered - the law stops at the Wall.

Rattleshirt is a raider like the Weeper - scum. He inspires nobody and has no tactician's head. 

Now, while I'm certain Stannis knew and agreed to Mance being glamored into Rattleshirt, there is a very marked difference on what he does with Rattleshirt AFTER the burning mummery. Originally he had the intention to gift Rattleshirt and the Magnar castles in the Gift. But in the chapter after the burning (the war room chapter), the first thing Stannis does is gift "Rattleshirt" to Jon, and feeling mightily good about it too. And Mel assures Jon in that war room within Stannis' presence that Rattleshirt is bound to her because of the ruby. Stannis ain't no dimwit. Notice that he does not "gift" the Magnar to Jon either.

Why is this significant: by gifting Mance to Jon, Stannis kept Mance at the Wall where the law ends. But south of the Gift, the king's law applies, and then Mance is an outlaw.

 

 

[Lord Varys]

5 hours ago, Springwatch said:

Stannis is mad about justice. He wanted Mance dead. Mel had to go against him.

Nah. I mean, guys, Stannis hangs out with and hands fucking Rattleshirt to Jon. Why would he do either? He wouldn't ... unless he knew perfectly well that Rattleshirt was actually Mance.

The notion that Mel would do something like that behind Stannis' back is, of course, not impossible - but Mel herself doesn't seem to have an interest in Mance. Stannis had long talks with him, he felt the man could be of use. Also, in context, if Mel had fooled Stannis with this ruse then there is no chance at all she would ever lift the glamor nor allow Mance to do some mission in the North wearing his actual face. As we see in ADwD the plan Abel and the women try to pull off included them delivering 'Arya' to Stannis. How would that have worked if Stannis had immediately recognized 'Abel' as Mance Rayder?

[Springwatch]

10 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

And I meant that Stannis knew "Mance" was Rattleshirt, and needed a legal loophole, which Jon offered - the law stops at the Wall.

Rattleshirt is a raider like the Weeper - scum. He inspires nobody and has no tactician's head. 

Now, while I'm certain Stannis knew and agreed to Mance being glamored into Rattleshirt, there is a very marked difference on what he does with Rattleshirt AFTER the burning mummery. Originally he had the intention to gift Rattleshirt and the Magnar castles in the Gift. But in the chapter after the burning (the war room chapter), the first thing Stannis does is gift "Rattleshirt" to Jon, and feeling mightily good about it too. And Mel assures Jon in that war room within Stannis' presence that Rattleshirt is bound to her because of the ruby. Stannis ain't no dimwit. Notice that he does not "gift" the Magnar to Jon either.

Why is this significant: by gifting Mance to Jon, Stannis kept Mance at the Wall where the law ends. But south of the Gift, the king's law applies, and then Mance is an outlaw.

 

 

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Nah. I mean, guys, Stannis hangs out with and hands fucking Rattleshirt to Jon. Why would he do either? He wouldn't ... unless he knew perfectly well that Rattleshirt was actually Mance.

The notion that Mel would do something like that behind Stannis' back is, of course, not impossible - but Mel herself doesn't seem to have an interest in Mance. Stannis had long talks with him, he felt the man could be of use. Also, in context, if Mel had fooled Stannis with this ruse then there is no chance at all she would ever lift the glamor nor allow Mance to do some mission in the North wearing his actual face. As we see in ADwD the plan Abel and the women try to pull off included them delivering 'Arya' to Stannis. How would that have worked if Stannis had immediately recognized 'Abel' as Mance Rayder?

Okay... interesting ideas above, and I don't know the chapters well enough to refute them. It's something to look out for.

For the moment though, everything's just a lot simpler if Stannis doesn't know. His thirst for justice is satisfied, and Mel's agony serves a purpose too. How 'useful' the actual Rattleshirt appears I can't tell.

It's not a stable scenario, but Mance himself is mainly the loser by that. I'll put a question mark on it.