No, he wasn’t. And while the geographical displacement makes for a nice dichotomy, it doesn’t hold up when we consider the events of the show.
Sure, the North is more rural and less sophisticated than the South, but we have seen plenty of corruption, blood-thirst and their own kind of decadence.
Look toward the Wall, look at the Houses.
The North remembers? No, it didn’t when it counted the most. The Boltons secured their position not by being honorouble but by being tyrannical, and to punish their dishonour, the strongest houses joined them, and the Umbers betrayed Rickon Stark, heir of the shining example Ned Stark.
And if you think, well, that was just the corrupting influence of the Boltons, I’d ask you to consider that the Houses who so loudly chose Jon as their King of the North have already wavered in their decision because he is not doing what they want him to do.
One of the things the show did really well was its willingness to poke such cliches like the honourable Northerner. For many seasons, they looked behind the curtain of cliches and at the people, who were shown to be the same everywhere.
added:
Sansa is an accomplice; Royce could as well think that she had more to do with Lysa’s death than she has admitted already. And she would not admit to it, because there is a lot at stake here for her - which, really, disqualifies her as a witness entirely.
I don’t recall that we’ve seen anything resembling a trial in the North (or for that matter at the Wall). Instead people are simply brought before the Lord (or Lady), the charges are read, and the Lord passes judgement. No evidence is presented. Ned summarily executed the deserter from the Night’s Watch, Robb executed Lord Karstark, and Jon executed Slynt.
So really it’s accusation + confession for Littlefinger vs just accusation for Tyrion.
I don’t think that’s disqualifying (whatever that means in a feudal society where Lords are the law) as a witness. If a man murdered someone today in the presence of a child and the child initially lied to police out of fear or reprisal, testimony from that child would be inadmissible in court? Bricker?
Obviously Westerosi concepts of due process and a fair trial are not our own. But when Sansa seemed to silently assent to LF’s demand that he be given the chance to defend himself, he didn’t - instead, he charged right over to Royce and ordered him to escort him back to the Vale. By the standards of the day, not the mark of an innocent man. LF knew there was no evidence he could present that would be exculpatory, and that his own testimony alone wouldn’t, and couldn’t, win his acquittal.
Ah, thanks. I’d forgotten that.
Here are four very interesting short interviews with Aidan Gillen:
Littlefinger threatened to throw Royce off the Eyrie. Clearly, their relationship is beyond distrust. Royce should have put a knife in LFs back the minute they left the Vale.
True, and a good point - though not one that contradicts my position that we don’t see justice being served.
All your examples seem to say the opposite: the man Ned executed was indeed a deserter and he admitted as much, Lord Karstark had disobeyed Robb’s order and so did Slynt with regard to Jon.
So, all’s well? Not at all. Being jury, judge and executioner is bound to produce less than desirable results - and at least two of your examples show that.
In a trial, the deserter might have told the assembly why he fled. A party sent out beyond the Wall might have found some circumstantial evidence to support, well not necessarily his tale of the Living Dead, but it might have shown that something weird had happened.
Maybe Ned missed the one opportunity he was presented to spare him and the North a desaster when he didn’t give this man an opportunity to defend himself properly. Not likely at all, but … maybe.
And the execution of Lord Karstark highlighted Robb’s shortcomings on every level: He gave an order that was pretty much impossible for the Karstark to follow, and Robb didn’t alleviate the dilemma that he had put upon his ally by sending him and his closest kin away on some mission immediately. After the deed was done, he could have addressed his own misjudgment, and choose a less severe punishment.
Worse, when his mother disobeyed him, she received as punishment a short house-arrest, which showed him to be unjust and meak. Of course, he could and should not have her executed but she should have been banished from the court and exiled to the north.
Tyrion’s trial seemed to indicate that guilt had to be proven - though this could be a local quirk, ridiculed by everyone else in the realm.
Now, Snarky_Kong is right insofar as Littlefinger admitted his guilt (some of it), which gives these proceedings the appearance of delivering justice.
But what if Littlefinger hadn’t made such an extraordinary and uncharacteristically stupid blunder?
What if he had denied everything? What if he had said that he had not betrayed Ned but Ned had tried to betray the rightful king of the realm, or so he thought? What if he had denied any wrongdoing? What if he had demanded to see evidence and witnesses?
What if he had argued that Bran might know things about everyone that he shouldn’t know but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t lie about the things they can’t confirm? It’s just his word, the word of someone who is, maybe, not even human, but who is definitely strange and incomprehensible and dangerous. What is this boy going to say next? Who will he accuse of doing something wrong? Who is without guilt? Who should be judged like that?
Littlefinger is rightly seen as one of the masters of scheming - but how often had he been forced to improvise? The whole situation seemed to be going his way, including Arya being led in - only to explode in his face (beautiful acting by Aidan Gillen by the way). He literally had only seconds to decide what to say. Flat out denial, knowing that Sansa was a witness to the murder of her aunt? Or admitting, buying a bit more thinking time, and trying to manipulate her?
Right. When Mr. Truth Serum is sitting next to the judge, denial is not a good choice. His only option was attempting to convince them that he was justified in killing her.
My point wasn’t that justice was being served, just that how Littlefinger was treated was pretty much in line with how things go down in the North. (None of those I mentioned were allowed to choose trial by combat either.) It wasn’t a “kangaroo court” according to accepted procedures there.
While your point that a trial might have exonerated or resulted in different punishment for those who were executed, in the event all were guilty of the crimes they were charged with and received the prescribed punishment.
Ironically, two of the trials we see, those of Tyrion in the Vale and King’s Landing, would have resulted in the execution of an innocent man despite following formal procedures. So in these cases, arbitrary judgments resulted in more appropriate “justice” than legal procedures.
You know, going back and looking at things from the first couple seasons, I really enjoy the little connections that get made. Robert talks about killing a Tarly, a while before Sam gets introduced. I think the Unsullied get mentioned pretty early.
It would have gone a long way if Theon had mentioned Euron once or twice early on. Build him up as some great sailor.
But is Zombie-Viserion a wight? He didn’t just reanimate, he was touched and raised personally by the Night’s King. Doesn’t that make him a White Walker?
Colibri, since an ordeal by battle is part of the formal proceedings, the justice system worked half the time for Tyrion - and almost always.
But, yeah, it is ironic that all the accused we see in the North are actually guilty of the crime, so the ridiculous proceedings appear to do what they are supposed to. Though I’d argue that we do not know if Lord Karstark could have chosen a trial by combat after he had opted to admit his guilt - I doubt it since the judgment of the gods is meant to reveal a truth otherwise hidden to men.
The deserter was not a nobleman, so likely not eligible to receive judgment by any gods in any case (I mean, why should the gods treat all men as equals? Ridiculous!).
And Slynt was a member of the Watch first, then a nobleman. I don’t remember if we ever learn about a right of a brother to demand an ordeal by battle, but it wouldn’t make much sense for them.
In any case, I realize that you weren’t talking about justice. And there was none to be had. Revenge? Sure. Punishment? Yeah. But not justice.
Though, I have no idea what I’d call a just judgment when it comes to Littlefinger. Or Cersei. Or Varys. Or Daenerys.
The other trial by combat we see is when the Hound is offered it by the Brotherhood Without Banners and kills Beric even though he has admitted killing the butcherboy (under orders, however). So trial by combat “worked” only one third of the time. Although in the Hound’s case, maybe it’s a value judgment by the gods that it’s OK to kill children as long as your boss tells you to do it.
Right. Trial by combat is only available to the highborn. In any case, common folk can be killed or raped by the highborn pretty much without consequence.
Alliser Thorne and at least two of the other mutineers hung by Jon were highborn, so they weren’t offered trial by combat either. (Again, there was no doubt about their guilt, although the gods could have decided that it was OK to kill your commander if the commander had committed treason by making peace with wildlings.)
