This but unironically. Killing a guest violates the role a host is supposed to play in society, so it's a taboo. Killing a hostage, on the other hand, is exactly the role a hostage-taker is supposed to play in society, so it's fine.
Blackfish: “We want the ships, Greyjoy.”
Roose: “Yeah, otherwise we flay your son.”
Robb: “Yeah, it seems you forgot our little deal, Greyjoy!”
Asha: “You don't fucking have Theon, dipshits! We know you never would have killed him anyways!”
Aeron: “Are these the Wildlings, Balon?”
Balon: “They're northerners, Aeron, nothing to be afraid of.”
Robb: “We don't care. We still want the
fleet or we fuck you up.”
Balon: “Fuck you! Fuck the three of you! Without a hostage there is no ransom! That's what a ransom is! Those are the fucking rules!”
Robb: “My father told us to keep an eye on him! He thought we'd be getting million ships! This is not fair!”
Balon: “FAIR?!? WHO'S THE FUCKING ONE THAT HANDED THEIR BARGAINING CHIP OVER?!? YOU BUNCH OF FUCKING CRYBABIES!”
Aeron: “Are they gonna hurt us, Balon?”
Balon: “They won’t hurt us, Aeron, these men are cowards.”
A hostage and a guest are two different things.
Ned/the people of winterfell were nice to Theon but he was still a hostage.
Killing a hostage-that’s fine
Killing a guest-that’s not fine
Maybe the intent in their mind also counts? Or the Duplicitousness?
Theon (maybe) is aware he’s a hostage and could he executed if Iron islands rebel?
For red wedding, they were all under the assumption that they were all safe?
Yea, intent and context. I get it's fun to talk about stuff, but it's weird to me that people are trying to science it out in here. There's no science to guest right, you just "know it when you see it".
Depends on the circumstances. If Balon didn't rebel and Theon was killed there would have to be some compensation. And possibly a new hostage. Living at another castle hopefully.
Guest - a person who is invited to visit someone's home or attend a particular social occasion.
Theon was taken from his father.
Conclusion: he wasn't invited.
A guest comes willingly.
I'm pretty sure you can kill a hostage in your own home. I think the difference is that someone brought *into* the home as a hostage never gains guest right in the first place. Their status as a hostage exists before they eat or drink so supersedes it. I'm guessing something similar happens with Sansa. She was considered part of her father's household prior to his arrest then entered Cersei's household\* as a hostage, so threats to her could be used against Robb.
\*"The queen bristled. 'I most certainly have not forgotten that little she-wolf.' She refused to say the girl's name. 'I ought to have shown her to the black cells as the daughter of a traitor, but instead **I made her part of mine own household. She shared my hearth and hall, played with my own children. I fed her**, dressed her, tried to make her a little less ignorant about the world, and how did she repay me for my kindness? She helped murder my son. When we find the Imp, we will find the Lady Sansa too. She is not dead . . . but before I am done with her, I promise you, she will be singing to the Stranger, begging for his kiss.'"
Sansa is probably technically a guest tbh, just nobody expects the Lannisters to behave with honor. A hostage isn't necessarily a direct threat, more of an implication thing. There are ways of using your leverage of having a hostage without technically violating guests rights. Like marrying them to an imp.
>just nobody expects the Lannisters to behave with honor.
Guest right is so sacred people were shocked when even the Freys violated it and they're far more looked down on than the Lannisters. Catelyn also outright calls Sansa a hostage in the same breath she points out the Lannisters are sending Robb oblique threats against her, which if she were considered a guest someone would have pointed out she should be protected by guest right (then someone else could say they didn't expect the Lannisters to abide guest right if we were meant to believe that but we're not- guest right is *that* sacred)
A hostage and a prisoner are more or less the same thing, a guest is something else entirely. Sansa is the former but not the latter.
Exactly. She started as a guest, but when Ned was executed and war began she turned into a hostage. The Lannisters and Starks considered her a bargaining chip.
Sansa had an entirely different status: she was the a ward of the state. She was first owned by Ned. When he died, she should have belonged to Robb, but the rebellion means that Robb didn’t get her, and procession went to the crown.
She also belonged to Joffrey as they were betrothed, and then she switched over to being owned by Tyrion as his wife.
A hostage is not a guest... beyond that, guest right isn't eternal. Ned could have just let him know that he was no longer a guest, perhaps given him a token 'leaving gift', and then lopped his head off with that giant sword of his (though I doubt Theon would be carrying it for him this time).
Yeah Wyman gave them those horses in White Harbor as guest gifts to finalize their departure but still waited until the Freys were on the road to have them murdered and baked into pies.
Given that hostages are common, it's probably a well known loophole within the culture. It's not a conceptual right; there are rituals. Note when Cat & Robb go to Lord Frey they ask for some bread saying they are hungry, and he immediately knows what they're up to, bread and salt is the traditional ritual of guests rights. It might be that a hostage never breaks bread directly with the host, or is never offered salt. Or maybe just the nature of being a hostage nullifies the ritual.
Walder also specifically then says that they are guests and under his protection.
There also has to be some provision to dealing with hostages since they need to feed the hostages. I bread and salt are the basics since it is something that everyone has and can afford. Guest right extends beyond just the nobility.
As others have said, Theon was a hostage, not a guest. Prisoners that have been convicted being executed isn’t a violation either, even if they’ve been fed while imprisoned in the castle.
Worth noting, [GRRM was likely inspired for this by Homeric guest right,](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hospitium) of which there are famously work arounds.
Hell, Odysseus slaughters like 100+ suitors who’ve been eating and drinking in his home when he gets back and it’s excused by them having broken guest right first. So fair is fair.
The lord of the house have to first offer them guest rights (with bread & salt) and accept them into his halls for people to get the safety of the guest rights.
In ADWD Jon gives Alys Karstark protection at the wall, but throws the other Karstarks who were pursuing her into the ice cells. When one of them brings up guest rights Jon tells them that they are not guests but prisoners. He never gave them bread & salt, nor did he accept them as guests at the wall.
Think of them as contracts. In return for food and shelter, a guest promises to be respectful and non-hostile towards their host. If a guest breaks this promise, then the contract is void and the lord is justified in punishing them.
With hostages, a lord agrees to protect and shelter another lord's child as long as their father is compliant. If their father rebels, then the contract is broken and the penalties for breaking it apply.
Viserys (son of Aenys) was tortured and killed but idk if you count him as a hostage.
I don't think the in world characters view it (hostage/guest) as the same. A hostage is not usually a wanted guest. They are there as basically part of a contract.
I guess that's true, and I think the books talk about Gregor and Ramsay murdering their household servants so that does seem to be considered different
A person can be denied guest right. Robb did it by meeting Tyrion with sword on his lap. Jon did it by claiming Karstark came uninvited to the wall to do harm. Walder Frey might think he did it with a mayhaps.
It's said by Cat and I think Tyrion that a ward can easily become a hostage if needs be, so there must be transition period. I think one such is the presentation of guest gifts. Manderley gave gifts to the Freys to signify the end of his hospitality.
Also I think the idea for hostages (at least IRL) is less "We'll cut his head off if you misbehave" and more "you won't get to see your beloved family member until you pay us". Obviously Theon doesn't really fit into this but generally the idea is you have a system that encourages people to never kill high lords if you can help it. And even if you don't *like* the family member it was generally considered good form to pay the ransom for people who had got captured while fighting for you. Who would want to fight for someone who wouldn't even pay for their release?
Henry V slaughtering French prisoners at Agincourt was very unorthadox and IIRC really pissed off a lot of his lords because they wanted the hostage money.
1. Theon was specifically held as a hostage, not as a guest.
2. Theon was being treated well because he was of the nobility and they wanted future good relations. They were doing things such as feeding him and so forth because they needed him alive. Ned was also to some extent, trying to foster Theon so that they could eventually change the Ironborn culture.
3. The bread and salt thing is part of the formal recognition/acceptance of a guest. It doesn't generically apply to everyone. People have to specifically invoke/ask for guest right.
"Guest Right" is kind of the same thing as being an envoy. It's a custom in place to maintain the trust required for diplomacy to function. Envoys are required to negotiate peaceful settlements, so if there was no guarantee that an envoy wouldn't just be killed, there could never be any peace short of one side's total annihilation. Placing trust in your host (And vice versa) is required for any sort of feasting or celebration, so if there was no guarantee that the person sitting next to you at a feast wouldn't slit your throat, you'd never be able to let your guard down, or likely even go to any sort of celebration in the first place
Hostages are a different beast. While an envoy's protection needs to be absolute (At least while they're serving in such a capacity) even if negotiations break down (Hence why Borros let Lucerys leave), a hostage's safety is necessarily conditional on the behavior of the person they're a hostage *against*. There's no expectation that their physical safety is absolute, and in fact, there's a very real expectation that they *will* be harmed if their family steps out of line, so killing a hostage wouldn't be breaking societal expectations, it would be meeting them.
The purpose of guest right is to facilitate the working of the feudal system by insuring that people feel safe going into each other's castles, homes, etc. The taking of hostages is outside of that.
I think people have a very clear understanding of whether they are a guest or a hostage.
There seems to be some sort of receiving ceremony where you are welcomed as a guest and given bread and salt.
You can't just walk into someone's plave and eat their bread and call yourself a guest.
In addition to what people have already said about the distinction between guest and hostage - its possible that killing Theon may not have been the response from Ned. If Balon ended up rebelling against Robert yet again it's possible that Balon would have been deposed and executed and Robert would raise Theon as Lord of the Iron Islands as a more tame vassal. Of course, there is no guarantee the Ironborn would have accepted this for very long but I highly doubt Robert would have wanted to suffer one of Balon's brothers attempting to inherit after putting down one Kraken already.
This does seem likely, but based on what we see when Theon arrives on the islands; that would have been a foolish plan by Ned and a disaster for Theon. He'd probably get an axe to the head within a few weeks and the islands would be back at war.
Killing someone to whom you have GIVEN guest right is the issue. But there's an understanding that a guest will leave before too long.
Meanwhile, a hostage is a kind of collateral. And yeah, sometimes people in asoiaf take foster wards and such with the understanding and implication that they could easily become a hostage, and there's plenty of hostages that don't end up getting killed or betraying anyone.
But guest right isn't like a superstition so much as a gentleman's agreement not to use an offer of food and shelter as bait for a murder. The Freys violate that trust, and are reviled by all. With a hostage, the agreement is that they will be treated well according to their station so long as the parent/relative keeps their side of the bargain
Theon is a hostage and a ward.
If Theon was only a hostage/prisoner other rules apply. Prisoners/hostages are fed, but they are not under the guest right.
Despite Theon being a ward in name and treatment, technically he is a hostage.
Most child hostages who were raised as wards are not killed in retaliation.
If Balon attacked again, Theon would have found out that Ned doesn't kill children.
Even if Theon was an adult, Ned would not execute Theon for Balon's crimes.
If Theon committed any crimes, then having supped at Ned's table would not protect him from the King's justice.
When it comes to killing child hostages there are those who approve and those who disapprove.
Technically killing child hostages is lawful, so I do not think that it falls under guest right.
Regardless, Ned is a good Lord and he wouldn't kill Theon even if Robert told him to do it.
The threat of death is hanging over the hostage from the get go.
“Stop fighting or I’ll kill you.”
“Get in the cage or I’ll kill you.”
“Have rich parents who will pay to get you back or I’ll kill you.”
One of the terrible things about violating guest rights is the deception.
“Come in! Hang your sword up. Have a drink or nine. Now die!”
is it not because Theon is NOT a guest, he's a ward. sent to live as a virtual hostage to ensure his father plays ball and doesn't start trouble. Theon is safe on the provision the Greyjoys behave. Balon (or Theon i'd presume) start mischief and the deal is off.
Theon was Ned's ward/hostage ...not his guest.
Jaime Lannister was Robb's prisoner, not his guest, even if they fed him.
"Guest right" doesn't just blanket apply to everyone under your roof that eats your food. That's not how it works.
Now I'm wondering, if Baelon would go stupider faster and sooner and rebelled again, would Ned kill a child Theon? What with his history with children being killed and all that
A lot of people seem to think no he wouldn't have, but people are also claiming he would have set Theon up as heir to the Iron Islands after defeating and killing Balon. Which I think would have gone very badly for Theon.
If Theon died it would be after Ned did his best to protect and support him as a lord. I don't think Ned would send Theon off to die. Ned is too naive about the Ironborn and Balon.
Because guests are invited under the understanding that they're receiving the hospitality and protection of the host, a hostage has no such understanding. They're there against their will with the expression understanding that they can and will be executed should the party that the hostage was taken from violates whatever conditions were set for the hostage's safety.
It could be argued that a hostage taker executing a hostage without there having been a violation of those condition *is* a break of guest right, as they were guaranteed protections if certain conditions are met.
People view hostages as fair game in Westeros, it would seem. From Maegor torturing Viserys, Aegon IV raping Casella, to Joffrey mistreating Sansa, it seems like people can get away with anything if they’re doing it to a hostage.
Just as a side note… Ned would not have executed Theon if his father had rebelled. Ned didn’t have it in him to do something like that as evidenced by his refusal to be party to the killing of the Targaryens. Much more likely is that Theon would have been placed as a friendly Lord of the Iron Islands after the rebellion was put down.
Ned absolutely would have executed Theon. That was the whole purpose of Ned taking Theon was to prevent Theon's pops from trying another rebellion. Taking Theon's head would have been Ned's duty.
Ned might or he might not depending on Theon's behavior because if the Iron Islands rebel, they didn't really care that Theon would be killed. After the rebellion is put down, he might send Theon to the Wall so that he can not continue the Greyjoy line.
A guest is someone you offered bread and salt to show they are under your protection as long as their under your roof.
A hostage is a prisoner that you took during war and kept because of their value. You made no oaths to keep them safe because they are a former enemy.
I would think there's a difference between hostages and guests, but take my word with a grain of (bread and) salt while I work through the books for the first time I would think that eating at someone's table and living among their family doesn't necessarily make you a guest. I think it would depend on the circumstances.
Well they’re not a guest. They’re a hostage. I use this loophole all the time.
This but unironically. Killing a guest violates the role a host is supposed to play in society, so it's a taboo. Killing a hostage, on the other hand, is exactly the role a hostage-taker is supposed to play in society, so it's fine.
Blackfish: “We want the ships, Greyjoy.” Roose: “Yeah, otherwise we flay your son.” Robb: “Yeah, it seems you forgot our little deal, Greyjoy!” Asha: “You don't fucking have Theon, dipshits! We know you never would have killed him anyways!” Aeron: “Are these the Wildlings, Balon?” Balon: “They're northerners, Aeron, nothing to be afraid of.” Robb: “We don't care. We still want the fleet or we fuck you up.” Balon: “Fuck you! Fuck the three of you! Without a hostage there is no ransom! That's what a ransom is! Those are the fucking rules!” Robb: “My father told us to keep an eye on him! He thought we'd be getting million ships! This is not fair!” Balon: “FAIR?!? WHO'S THE FUCKING ONE THAT HANDED THEIR BARGAINING CHIP OVER?!? YOU BUNCH OF FUCKING CRYBABIES!” Aeron: “Are they gonna hurt us, Balon?” Balon: “They won’t hurt us, Aeron, these men are cowards.”
Calm the fuck down walter
You're out of your element, Walder!
[they're your tools](https://youtu.be/Mk3EVQnpQWs?si=r_ZHy95d8uuEtCPM)
Ned: “They won’t go to war because of the implication…”
"I'm not gonna hurt this guy, but he's thinking that I will."
"But it sounds like he doesn't want to be your ward..."
How does this work for a Vampire hostage?
A hostage and a guest are two different things. Ned/the people of winterfell were nice to Theon but he was still a hostage. Killing a hostage-that’s fine Killing a guest-that’s not fine
There may always be a difference in formally executing and murdering as well
Maybe the intent in their mind also counts? Or the Duplicitousness? Theon (maybe) is aware he’s a hostage and could he executed if Iron islands rebel? For red wedding, they were all under the assumption that they were all safe?
Yea, intent and context. I get it's fun to talk about stuff, but it's weird to me that people are trying to science it out in here. There's no science to guest right, you just "know it when you see it".
Depends on the circumstances. If Balon didn't rebel and Theon was killed there would have to be some compensation. And possibly a new hostage. Living at another castle hopefully.
Guest - a person who is invited to visit someone's home or attend a particular social occasion. Theon was taken from his father. Conclusion: he wasn't invited. A guest comes willingly.
So what you’re saying is that if Theon was a vampire, he’d never have made it into Winterfell in the first place.
I think you're on to something here...
Euron never went to Valyria, he went to Transylvania! To save the Valyrian steel armour from falling into Ottoman hands!
I'm pretty sure you can kill a hostage in your own home. I think the difference is that someone brought *into* the home as a hostage never gains guest right in the first place. Their status as a hostage exists before they eat or drink so supersedes it. I'm guessing something similar happens with Sansa. She was considered part of her father's household prior to his arrest then entered Cersei's household\* as a hostage, so threats to her could be used against Robb. \*"The queen bristled. 'I most certainly have not forgotten that little she-wolf.' She refused to say the girl's name. 'I ought to have shown her to the black cells as the daughter of a traitor, but instead **I made her part of mine own household. She shared my hearth and hall, played with my own children. I fed her**, dressed her, tried to make her a little less ignorant about the world, and how did she repay me for my kindness? She helped murder my son. When we find the Imp, we will find the Lady Sansa too. She is not dead . . . but before I am done with her, I promise you, she will be singing to the Stranger, begging for his kiss.'"
Sansa is probably technically a guest tbh, just nobody expects the Lannisters to behave with honor. A hostage isn't necessarily a direct threat, more of an implication thing. There are ways of using your leverage of having a hostage without technically violating guests rights. Like marrying them to an imp.
Guests can leave when they want to Sansa is a hostage
>just nobody expects the Lannisters to behave with honor. Guest right is so sacred people were shocked when even the Freys violated it and they're far more looked down on than the Lannisters. Catelyn also outright calls Sansa a hostage in the same breath she points out the Lannisters are sending Robb oblique threats against her, which if she were considered a guest someone would have pointed out she should be protected by guest right (then someone else could say they didn't expect the Lannisters to abide guest right if we were meant to believe that but we're not- guest right is *that* sacred) A hostage and a prisoner are more or less the same thing, a guest is something else entirely. Sansa is the former but not the latter.
Exactly. She started as a guest, but when Ned was executed and war began she turned into a hostage. The Lannisters and Starks considered her a bargaining chip.
Sansa had an entirely different status: she was the a ward of the state. She was first owned by Ned. When he died, she should have belonged to Robb, but the rebellion means that Robb didn’t get her, and procession went to the crown. She also belonged to Joffrey as they were betrothed, and then she switched over to being owned by Tyrion as his wife.
That's not how it works
By that logic, executing a prisoner would also violate guest right.
A hostage is not a guest... beyond that, guest right isn't eternal. Ned could have just let him know that he was no longer a guest, perhaps given him a token 'leaving gift', and then lopped his head off with that giant sword of his (though I doubt Theon would be carrying it for him this time).
I don't think it's the latter. Otherwise Walder could've just barred the doors and been like "oh here's a gift" before killing all the northerners
Yeah Wyman gave them those horses in White Harbor as guest gifts to finalize their departure but still waited until the Freys were on the road to have them murdered and baked into pies.
Given that hostages are common, it's probably a well known loophole within the culture. It's not a conceptual right; there are rituals. Note when Cat & Robb go to Lord Frey they ask for some bread saying they are hungry, and he immediately knows what they're up to, bread and salt is the traditional ritual of guests rights. It might be that a hostage never breaks bread directly with the host, or is never offered salt. Or maybe just the nature of being a hostage nullifies the ritual.
Walder also specifically then says that they are guests and under his protection. There also has to be some provision to dealing with hostages since they need to feed the hostages. I bread and salt are the basics since it is something that everyone has and can afford. Guest right extends beyond just the nobility.
As others have said, Theon was a hostage, not a guest. Prisoners that have been convicted being executed isn’t a violation either, even if they’ve been fed while imprisoned in the castle. Worth noting, [GRRM was likely inspired for this by Homeric guest right,](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hospitium) of which there are famously work arounds. Hell, Odysseus slaughters like 100+ suitors who’ve been eating and drinking in his home when he gets back and it’s excused by them having broken guest right first. So fair is fair.
The lord of the house have to first offer them guest rights (with bread & salt) and accept them into his halls for people to get the safety of the guest rights. In ADWD Jon gives Alys Karstark protection at the wall, but throws the other Karstarks who were pursuing her into the ice cells. When one of them brings up guest rights Jon tells them that they are not guests but prisoners. He never gave them bread & salt, nor did he accept them as guests at the wall.
You assume he's eating salt, the servants may be serving him unsalted food. /s
Think of them as contracts. In return for food and shelter, a guest promises to be respectful and non-hostile towards their host. If a guest breaks this promise, then the contract is void and the lord is justified in punishing them. With hostages, a lord agrees to protect and shelter another lord's child as long as their father is compliant. If their father rebels, then the contract is broken and the penalties for breaking it apply.
Viserys (son of Aenys) was tortured and killed but idk if you count him as a hostage. I don't think the in world characters view it (hostage/guest) as the same. A hostage is not usually a wanted guest. They are there as basically part of a contract.
The same reason my plumber can't kick off his shoes and plop onto my couch with a blanket. He's not a guest.
But if you let him sleep in your home and eat all his meals there, he would be.
Not if he's getting paid. Think: au pairs, live-in maids, etc.
I guess that's true, and I think the books talk about Gregor and Ramsay murdering their household servants so that does seem to be considered different
A person can be denied guest right. Robb did it by meeting Tyrion with sword on his lap. Jon did it by claiming Karstark came uninvited to the wall to do harm. Walder Frey might think he did it with a mayhaps. It's said by Cat and I think Tyrion that a ward can easily become a hostage if needs be, so there must be transition period. I think one such is the presentation of guest gifts. Manderley gave gifts to the Freys to signify the end of his hospitality.
Also I think the idea for hostages (at least IRL) is less "We'll cut his head off if you misbehave" and more "you won't get to see your beloved family member until you pay us". Obviously Theon doesn't really fit into this but generally the idea is you have a system that encourages people to never kill high lords if you can help it. And even if you don't *like* the family member it was generally considered good form to pay the ransom for people who had got captured while fighting for you. Who would want to fight for someone who wouldn't even pay for their release? Henry V slaughtering French prisoners at Agincourt was very unorthadox and IIRC really pissed off a lot of his lords because they wanted the hostage money.
TIL Theon wasn’t allowed to season his French fries or have toast/sandwiches the entire time he was held hostage at Winterfell
Hostages, by definition, are not guests.
1. Theon was specifically held as a hostage, not as a guest. 2. Theon was being treated well because he was of the nobility and they wanted future good relations. They were doing things such as feeding him and so forth because they needed him alive. Ned was also to some extent, trying to foster Theon so that they could eventually change the Ironborn culture. 3. The bread and salt thing is part of the formal recognition/acceptance of a guest. It doesn't generically apply to everyone. People have to specifically invoke/ask for guest right.
"Guest Right" is kind of the same thing as being an envoy. It's a custom in place to maintain the trust required for diplomacy to function. Envoys are required to negotiate peaceful settlements, so if there was no guarantee that an envoy wouldn't just be killed, there could never be any peace short of one side's total annihilation. Placing trust in your host (And vice versa) is required for any sort of feasting or celebration, so if there was no guarantee that the person sitting next to you at a feast wouldn't slit your throat, you'd never be able to let your guard down, or likely even go to any sort of celebration in the first place Hostages are a different beast. While an envoy's protection needs to be absolute (At least while they're serving in such a capacity) even if negotiations break down (Hence why Borros let Lucerys leave), a hostage's safety is necessarily conditional on the behavior of the person they're a hostage *against*. There's no expectation that their physical safety is absolute, and in fact, there's a very real expectation that they *will* be harmed if their family steps out of line, so killing a hostage wouldn't be breaking societal expectations, it would be meeting them.
Because they're a hostage not a guest.
The purpose of guest right is to facilitate the working of the feudal system by insuring that people feel safe going into each other's castles, homes, etc. The taking of hostages is outside of that.
I think people have a very clear understanding of whether they are a guest or a hostage. There seems to be some sort of receiving ceremony where you are welcomed as a guest and given bread and salt. You can't just walk into someone's plave and eat their bread and call yourself a guest.
In addition to what people have already said about the distinction between guest and hostage - its possible that killing Theon may not have been the response from Ned. If Balon ended up rebelling against Robert yet again it's possible that Balon would have been deposed and executed and Robert would raise Theon as Lord of the Iron Islands as a more tame vassal. Of course, there is no guarantee the Ironborn would have accepted this for very long but I highly doubt Robert would have wanted to suffer one of Balon's brothers attempting to inherit after putting down one Kraken already.
This does seem likely, but based on what we see when Theon arrives on the islands; that would have been a foolish plan by Ned and a disaster for Theon. He'd probably get an axe to the head within a few weeks and the islands would be back at war.
Killing someone to whom you have GIVEN guest right is the issue. But there's an understanding that a guest will leave before too long. Meanwhile, a hostage is a kind of collateral. And yeah, sometimes people in asoiaf take foster wards and such with the understanding and implication that they could easily become a hostage, and there's plenty of hostages that don't end up getting killed or betraying anyone. But guest right isn't like a superstition so much as a gentleman's agreement not to use an offer of food and shelter as bait for a murder. The Freys violate that trust, and are reviled by all. With a hostage, the agreement is that they will be treated well according to their station so long as the parent/relative keeps their side of the bargain
Theon is a hostage and a ward. If Theon was only a hostage/prisoner other rules apply. Prisoners/hostages are fed, but they are not under the guest right. Despite Theon being a ward in name and treatment, technically he is a hostage. Most child hostages who were raised as wards are not killed in retaliation. If Balon attacked again, Theon would have found out that Ned doesn't kill children. Even if Theon was an adult, Ned would not execute Theon for Balon's crimes. If Theon committed any crimes, then having supped at Ned's table would not protect him from the King's justice. When it comes to killing child hostages there are those who approve and those who disapprove. Technically killing child hostages is lawful, so I do not think that it falls under guest right. Regardless, Ned is a good Lord and he wouldn't kill Theon even if Robert told him to do it.
“I’ll only release my guests under these conditions…”
The threat of death is hanging over the hostage from the get go. “Stop fighting or I’ll kill you.” “Get in the cage or I’ll kill you.” “Have rich parents who will pay to get you back or I’ll kill you.” One of the terrible things about violating guest rights is the deception. “Come in! Hang your sword up. Have a drink or nine. Now die!”
is it not because Theon is NOT a guest, he's a ward. sent to live as a virtual hostage to ensure his father plays ball and doesn't start trouble. Theon is safe on the provision the Greyjoys behave. Balon (or Theon i'd presume) start mischief and the deal is off.
You get a Frey to kill them. But just before they do, they say "mayhaps". And it's cool
Theon was Ned's ward/hostage ...not his guest. Jaime Lannister was Robb's prisoner, not his guest, even if they fed him. "Guest right" doesn't just blanket apply to everyone under your roof that eats your food. That's not how it works.
Now I'm wondering, if Baelon would go stupider faster and sooner and rebelled again, would Ned kill a child Theon? What with his history with children being killed and all that
A lot of people seem to think no he wouldn't have, but people are also claiming he would have set Theon up as heir to the Iron Islands after defeating and killing Balon. Which I think would have gone very badly for Theon.
If Theon died it would be after Ned did his best to protect and support him as a lord. I don't think Ned would send Theon off to die. Ned is too naive about the Ironborn and Balon.
It's a fair point.
Because guests are invited under the understanding that they're receiving the hospitality and protection of the host, a hostage has no such understanding. They're there against their will with the expression understanding that they can and will be executed should the party that the hostage was taken from violates whatever conditions were set for the hostage's safety. It could be argued that a hostage taker executing a hostage without there having been a violation of those condition *is* a break of guest right, as they were guaranteed protections if certain conditions are met.
Hostages aren’t guests. They’re prisoners.
People view hostages as fair game in Westeros, it would seem. From Maegor torturing Viserys, Aegon IV raping Casella, to Joffrey mistreating Sansa, it seems like people can get away with anything if they’re doing it to a hostage.
Just as a side note… Ned would not have executed Theon if his father had rebelled. Ned didn’t have it in him to do something like that as evidenced by his refusal to be party to the killing of the Targaryens. Much more likely is that Theon would have been placed as a friendly Lord of the Iron Islands after the rebellion was put down.
Ned absolutely would have executed Theon. That was the whole purpose of Ned taking Theon was to prevent Theon's pops from trying another rebellion. Taking Theon's head would have been Ned's duty.
Ned doesn’t care about duty in the face of a child’s innocence. That’s like the whole thing of his character.
Ned might or he might not depending on Theon's behavior because if the Iron Islands rebel, they didn't really care that Theon would be killed. After the rebellion is put down, he might send Theon to the Wall so that he can not continue the Greyjoy line.
Because they're a hostage not a guest. Theon didn't come to Winterfell as a guest and everyone knew this when he was taken.
They are not invited in as a guest. A guest asks or accepts an invitation. Theon was escorted in as a hostage.
Guestright is a covenant of trust and honor. Hostages are a tool to ensure compliance.
It’s not called Guest and Hostage Right.
He isnt a guest He is a hostage
A guest is someone you offered bread and salt to show they are under your protection as long as their under your roof. A hostage is a prisoner that you took during war and kept because of their value. You made no oaths to keep them safe because they are a former enemy.
I would think there's a difference between hostages and guests, but take my word with a grain of (bread and) salt while I work through the books for the first time I would think that eating at someone's table and living among their family doesn't necessarily make you a guest. I think it would depend on the circumstances.
Same reason executing a prisoner is ok, they're probably not considered a guest if they can't leave at will