Eddard Stark: Hypocrite

[Lord Yarwyck]

In A Clash of Kings, Dany says to Jorah about Ned Stark, Robert Baratheon and Tywin Lannister (I believe): "They rebelled against my father - what honour could they have?"

Given the revelations about Jaime in this latest book (which I just finished tonight), that seems an excellent question. Whilst I still love the character of Ned, does it not seem slightly odd that he broke his own oaths to the King for similar reasons to Jaime Lannister - if we take Ned's own assumed motive for Jaime killing Aerys: putting family over oaths, is that not exactly what Ned did?

Even if Ned did not swear a direct oath of fealty, presumably every single one of his bannerman did, and yet he doesn't criticize them.

Any thoughts?

[Maginor]

Jaime swore an oath to protect the King's life with his own and was a trusted member of the kingsguard. This implies absolute obedience. That is different from a standard feudal oath to serve the king. A feudal oath often involves a benefit and duty on both parties. The King is supposed to protect his vassals. Aerys broke that bond.

Ned did not break his oath for a similar reason to Jaime. Rhaegar kidnapped Ned's sister, then Aerys killed Ned's father and brother and many of their friends. He also called for Ned and Robert's heads. Aerys had not been a threat to Jaime or his family if they had not joined the rebellion (which they had no reason to do other than self gain). He was still not a big threat because he was entirely in Jaime's power in the end. Jaime could have locked him up in a room and it would have had the same effect.

[Winter Wolf]

I see your point but I disagree. Ned and Robert were seeking vengance on their slain family members and Robert's betrothed, Lyanna. Jaime's sin was breaking a solemn oath to protect the king at all costs. He also killed the king in cold blood, unarmed, in the throne room whlst sitting in the Iron Throne. Had he just waited in the throne room and allowed the rebels take Aerys captive, he would have been untainted and the name Kingslayer would have not been bestowed upon him. As you also remember Jaime sat in the Iron Throne after he killed Aerys, which was perceived as direct claim to for the throne.

Just my thoughts. I agree with you that it creates an interesting conflict. This is also what GRRM is so brilliant at: creating the grey storylines. Enjoy!!

[Blangadanger]

Well I don't believe Ned ever swore an oath himself to the King. I'm sure his father did many years back when he became regent of the north, but Ned was never required to since he was not even first in succession to Winterfell. If I remember correctly, Ned was summoned to the King after his father and older brother were tortured, but by the time Ned showed, Jaime had slain him. So, no, Ned is not the traitor that Jaime is, because he had never sworn fealty to the King directly.

[Addam of Hull]

A king is only king because his subjects agree that he has the right to rule them. It's why functionally a king really can't just go around doing whatever he likes - there's an unspoken contract between him and his lords. They pledge a King fealty with the understanding that the King is to rule with certain conditions in mind. Aerys violates the contract by unjustly killing both Brandon and Rickard Stark and then later demanding the heads of Robert and Ned - at that point, some of the Lords are no longer willing to tolerate his claim to the throne because he is no longer ruling in a manner they consider to be appropriate.

[Xtopher]

I like how everyone answered exactly the same but with different facts to back them up.

Bottom line: Nope, Ned is no hypocrite. Sorry Lord Yarwick.

[Lord Yarwyck]

I suppose that's fair.

[The hairy bear]

As theythg says feudalism is a contract between the king and the bannermen, and Aerys was the first who broke this contract. Unfair trials, cruel punishments and random executions are enough grounds to oppose the king. Even the staunchest Targaryen loyalists, incluiding the crown prince Rhaegar, agreed that he was unfit to rule.

Aerys had just abused his power to arbitrarily kill his father and brother, and was asking for his head. Meanwhile his sister was kidnapped somewhere else. Rebelling against Aerys was, IMO, the honorable thing to do.

[stormborns]

As theythg says feudalism is a contract between the king and the bannermen, and Aerys was the first who broke this contract. Unfair trials, cruel punishments and random executions are enough grounds to oppose the king. Even the staunchest Targaryen loyalists, incluiding the crown prince Rhaegar, agreed that he was unfit to rule.

Aerys had just abused his power to arbitrarily kill his father and brother, and was asking for his head. Meanwhile his sister was kidnapped somewhere else. Rebelling against Aerys was, IMO, the honorable thing to do.

This whole comment is exact. Vows are a contract between two parties, and when we get really whiney, the Targaryens were intruders way back when. They invaded and set fire to cities, so when one thinks about it, the politics of the Iron Throne are drowning in hypocrisy.

[Xtopher]

I was really confused about the Andals and the First Men and how they got to Westeros until i bought the First Season Bluray Bundle and inside they explained everything through many comic-like 1 minute videos spread through the chapters. It was reaaally nice. I was shocked to hear how the Targs got to power and what they did to keep it.

Kudos to the northmen who stood their ground... well, at least until the King that Kneeled did his thing.

[Lord Yarwyck]

Wait a sec - something has come to me.

Ned is no hypocrite, which has been very well demonstrated by the replies above, but...

What about Jon Arryn - he was Warden of the East (a royal appointment), which means he presumably did swear a direct oath to Aerys II Targaryen. When Aerys asked for Ned and Robert's heads, Jon's rebellion (which presumably entailed breaking his oaths to Aerys) was what started the War of the Usurper off. Jon Arryn, at least once, was an oathbreaker.

Now, Ned (presumably) assumes Jaime killed Aerys because he was loyal to his family rather than to his vows as a knight. However, surely Jon Arryn did something similar - taking up arms against the king rather than hand over his beloved surrogate children? Might it be fair to say that Ned does not hold his friends to the same moral standards as those he dislikes?

Just a thought.

Yarwyck

[Xtopher]

Jon Arryn wasnt Ned´s friend, he was almost his father.

"Family, duty, honor."

[Ramsay Gimp]

Wait a sec - something has come to me.

Ned is no hypocrite, which has been very well demonstrated by the replies above, but...

What about Jon Arryn - he was Warden of the East (a royal appointment), which means he presumably did swear a direct oath to Aerys II Targaryen. When Aerys asked for Ned and Robert's heads, Jon's rebellion (which presumably entailed breaking his oaths to Aerys) was what started the War of the Usurper off. Jon Arryn, at least once, was an oathbreaker.

Now, Ned (presumably) assumes Jaime killed Aerys because he was loyal to his family rather than to his vows as a knight. However, surely Jon Arryn did something similar - taking up arms against the king rather than hand over his beloved surrogate children? Might it be fair to say that Ned does not hold his friends to the same moral standards as those he dislikes?

Just a thought.

Yarwyck

The Warden of the East raising his banners in open rebellion is still not nearly as treacherous as a member of the Kingsguard slaying his liege. He was in the KINGSGUARD. It is still treason to rebel, yes. But with John Arryn it wasn't done for selfish reasons, unlike Jaime's actions (in Ned's eyes). He did it to protect his foster sons and for the good of the realm

[Lord Yarwyck]

Jon Arryn wasnt Ned´s friend, he was almost his father.

"Family, duty, honor."

Those are the Tully words - the Arryn ones are "As High as Honour"

The Warden of the East raising his banners in open rebellion is still not nearly as treacherous as a member of the Kingsguard slaying his liege. He was in the KINGSGUARD. It is still treason to rebel, yes. But with John Arryn it wasn't done for selfish reasons, unlike Jaime's actions (in Ned's eyes). He did it to protect his foster sons and for the good of the realm

I can take that point, although I would point out that we don't know exactly what oaths the Wardens swear - they could be just as binding as the Kingsguard ones.

[The Roaring Bear]

I can take that point, although I would point out that we don't know exactly what oaths the Wardens swear - they could be just as binding as the Kingsguard ones.

Doubtful since the Wardens are not the personal bodyguards of the King.

[Lord Yarwyck]

Doubtful since the Wardens are not the personal bodyguards of the King.

They are his generals and surrogate rulers though - Ned has to administer the King's Justice in the North, for instance.

[Ramsay Gimp]

They are his generals and surrogate rulers though - Ned has to administer the King's Justice in the North, for instance.

Ned, John Arryn, and Robert are all guilty of treason. I don't think anyone would argue that. But context matters a lot in how these things are perceived, both to us as readers and to the people of westeros

I'd say it was more hypocritical of the Starks to help crush the Greyjoy secession, and then try to secede themselves several years later

[Maginor]

Ned, John Arryn, and Robert are all guilty of treason. I don't think anyone would argue that. But context matters a lot in how these things are perceived, both to us as readers and to the people of westeros

I'd say it was more hypocritical of the Starks to help crush the Greyjoy secession, and then try to secede themselves several years later

Ned helped crush the Greyjoy secession. Robb secedes the North. Robb is not responsible for Ned's actions.

[Lord Yarwyck]

Ned helped crush the Greyjoy secession. Robb secedes the North. Robb is not responsible for Ned's actions.

Ironically, I am now disagreeing - Robb had a better reason to leave than Balon Greyjoy: the Starks were seceding because their King had murdered their Lord, whilst the Greyjoys seceded so they could go back to raping, pillaging and burning.

[KhaleesiDany]

I think Ned was sort of caught up in the whole thing. Aerys killed his father and brother and I doubt Ned could have done anything about it under normal circumstances, but Robert wanted to make war. Of course Robert only wanted to go to war because he was jealous (or protecting) Lyanna, depending on which version of events you believe...

The more you get into it the more shakey you realize anyone's claim to the throne is. The only ones meant to sit the iron throne are Targaryens.

IMO Ned is a traitor to the realm, but not to Winterfell or his family. That's why in the beginning of the series he wants to stay in Winterfell--it is comfortable for him and away from all those politics. But the decisions he made as a youth with his BFF turn around on him years later. If Winterfell was autonomous as it had been in the past, the starks wouldn't be having these problems, but it isn't. The Lannisters take the throne of all seven kingdoms as they'd planned to since the rebellion and the whole country comes crashing down from there.

I think Stannis is the bigger traitor for thinking he has some claim to the iron throne just because his brother killed the previous guy who was sitting on it. That he killed Renly makes him a traitor to his family, too. He is also a traitor to the old Gods.