mrunderhill Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 The king actually betrayed Ned when he killed his Father and Brother, for which the mad king had no just cause, also I did say that Ned thinks Jamie killed Aerys II when it suited him.I would agree on this, but there is no real justification legally for betraying Robert and the realm when he declares Joffrey the rightful king. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manderlay Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 I would agree on this, but there is no real justification legally for betraying Robert and the realm when he declares Joffrey the rightful king.I am a bit confused how did Ned betray Robert? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maegor the Cuddly Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 I would agree on this, but there is no real justification legally for betraying Robert and the realm when he declares Joffrey the rightful king.Did he outright say, "I make Joffrey my heir!"? He was the assumed heir, and therefore, was given the throne. Note when Ned wrote down "my rightful heir" instead of "Joffrey"? He was saying Stannis, rather than Joffrey by doing that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrunderhill Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 I am a bit confused how did Ned betray Robert?Did he outright say, "I make Joffrey my heir!"? He was the assumed heir, and therefore, was given the throne. Note when Ned wrote down "my rightful heir" instead of "Joffrey"? He was saying Stannis, rather than Joffrey by doing that.At his execution when he admitted treason and declared Joffrey as the rightful king. He declared an illegitimate child to be the rightful king. Therefore not only betraying Robert in allowing an illegitimate child to inherit his throne, but also the realm by allowing a crazy, illegitimate child to take the throne. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AchillesReborn Posted May 2, 2013 Author Share Posted May 2, 2013 He was not angry at Jaime for 'breaking the rules' as such, more being am oath breaker. Jaime was sworn to protect Aerys and he killed him. He didn't know the circumstances. Its not the breaking of the rules, but breaking an oath which is more to do with honour than rules.He follows his moral compass, not necessarily the law!I'll admit he was a man of good morals, that is why his death was so unexpected and tragic. Too bad they never had a chance to just talk it out, considering Jamie gave birth to the next mad king, who killed Ned.The king actually betrayed Ned when he killed his Father and Brother, for which the mad king had no just cause, also I did say that Ned thinks Jamie killed Aerys II when it suited him.True Ned didn't know Jamie's side of the story. But the mad king basically was about to do the same thing to Jamie, funny how similar Ned and Jamie end up being when we see both sides of the story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yolkboy Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 Not true. Look at the legendary Erryk and Arryk, both choice their king/queen over family.Well they did something highly dishonorable then.It's a catch 22 where either decision is dishonourable. That's my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manderlay Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 At his execution when he admitted treason and declared Joffrey as the rightful king. He declared an illegitimate child to be the rightful king. Therefore not only betraying Robert in allowing an illegitimate child to inherit his throne, but also the realm by allowing a crazy, illegitimate child to take the throne.He did it for Sansa, not for himself, he was in no position to oppose the Lannisters after he was imprisoned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrunderhill Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 Well they did something highly dishonorable then.It's a catch 22 where either decision is dishonourable. That's my point.Maybe it Westeros, but I am not even sure that is the case. In most feudal societies loyalty to the King came before loyalty to family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrunderhill Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 He did it for Sansa, not for himself, he was in no position to oppose the Lannisters after he was imprisoned.I know why he did it, but that does not make it any less of a betrayal or the wrong thing to do honour wise. Shouting at Joffrey was illegitimate from an honourable man such as Ned, may have gained Stannis more support. Probably would have allowed Robb to form an alliance with Stannis easier and made Renly look more of a greedy so and so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AchillesReborn Posted May 2, 2013 Author Share Posted May 2, 2013 He did it for Sansa, not for himself, he was in no position to oppose the Lannisters after he was imprisoned.Exactly my problem, he betrayed everyone, to save his daughter. I suppose in a way tho this makes him somewhat of a free thinker, making a hard choice, even if he chose wrong. Could of died a hero, but he died a traitor. I still think he somewhat represents the sheeple of westeros society, I mean no one perfectly fits into a cliche. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fire Eater Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 I am a bit confused how did Ned betray Robert?He kept the Targaryen heir hidden from Robert and raised him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yolkboy Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 He kept the Targaryen heir hidden from Robert and raised him.and also hesitated to tell Robert about twincest for the sake of the children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manderlay Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 He kept the Targaryen heir hidden from Robert and raised him.yes but he did it to protect a child because of robert's hatred of the targaryens, and also killing of children never bothered Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manderlay Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 I know why he did it, but that does not make it any less of a betrayal or the wrong thing to do honour wise. Shouting at Joffrey was illegitimate from an honourable man such as Ned, may have gained Stannis more support. Probably would have allowed Robb to form an alliance with Stannis easier and made Renly look more of a greedy so and so.At some point, a man has to realize when he is defeated, may it be battle or the game, dying needlessly while endangering a child of you own serves no purpose, and the crowd is fickle and mostly they came to see a beheading, they dont care if Ned was a traitor or Joffery is a bastard, besides what Ned says can be denied as he has no proof. The High Septon is with the Lannisters, if he claims Joffery is not a bastard are the small folk going to believe Ned? I dont think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrunderhill Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 At some point, a man has to realize when he is defeated, may it be battle or the game, dying needlessly while endangering a child of you own serves no purpose, and the crowd is fickle and mostly they came to see a beheading, they dont care if Ned was a traitor or Joffery is a bastard, besides what Ned says can be denied as he has no proof. The High Septon is with the Lannisters, if he claims Joffery is not a bastard are the small folk going to believe Ned? I dont think so.It is not just about the crowd. The world would spread and Ned is known Westeros over as being a honest and good man. There are worst things than being defeated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manderlay Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 There are worst things than being defeated.Like loosing a child of your own when it serves no purpose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrunderhill Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 Like loosing a child of your own when it serves no purpose.In Ned's opinion that is the case. However, Ned has always put his family first before anything, which is why he is a hypocrite for judging Jaime as an oathbreaker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rejndjer Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 not sure if some1 pointed this out, ned actually finds jaime sitting on IT, so how was he to know it was jaime who killed aerys, also if he wasn't killed by jaime, would ned still treat him same? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavosSeaworthy Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 Did Jamie have to kill Aerys, no, Jamie is a knight of the kingsgaurd, he could have easily knocked him out or detained him so he could have stood trial for his crimes against the realm. Jamie chose to play 'hero' by slitting his throat. Basically Jamie's "rule breaking" looks way worse since the man leading the sacking of kings landing was his father. Jamie isn't a bright person, by killing the hand and the king to try and become a hero, something he has always wanted to be: "That boy had wanted to be Ser Arthur Dayne, but someplace along the way he had become the Smiling Knight instead" So instead of detaining two men that he could easily detain and handle, he kills them. The hand could have shown Ned and company where the wildfire was placed, making Jamie a hero, his dream, instead he kills these two men with noble intentions, and doesn't explain why. I've always thought Ned held a grudge against Jamie because Jamie broke his vow and used his position to basically rob Ned of his justice. If you're in Neds shoes, it looks like Jamie killed the king to take the throne for himself or his father. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The guy from the Vale Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 In Ned's opinion that is the case. However, Ned has always put his family first before anything, which is why he is a hypocrite for judging Jaime as an oathbreaker.No. Had he put his family before his duty, he would never hae gone to KL in the first place.The Ned was an honorable man, but he mainly was a man who did what was right. He had the choice of either saving the life of his innocent daughter or dieing in an attempt at an empty gesture that wuld hae been cut short immediately by Ser Illyn anyway. I commend him for refusing to grandstand when it served no purpose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.