Given that he was tortured to death, was Terrence Toyne denied the right to trial by combat? If so, is this another example of Aegon IV’s violation of the feudal contract?

opinions-about-tiaras:

Hmm. Was it, tho?

I’m gonna be honest, when and how a trial of any sort, including by combat, is appropriate and justified is unclear to me.

Like, obviously the smallfolk don’t get a trial by combat. But surely even the highborn cannot always demand one anytime they’re caught or accused of doing something illegal; otherwise a particularly skilled combatant could do whatever crimes they wanted, declare trial by combat, and then walk away scot free.

My instinct is to say there’d only be a trial, by combat or not, if there’s an actual question of guilt, such as with Tyrion. Tyrion would not have been granted a trial at all if he’d, for example, simply walked up and stabbed Joffrey in the face in front of the whole court, because there’s no question of guilt. In the case of Terrence Toyne, he and Bethany Bracken did not deny what they’d done; in fact they proclaimed their love after being caught in flagrante. In that case, the torture was probably over the top but the execution without trial was not a violation of the feudal contract per se. Bittersteel didn’t get a trial by combat either, and you can bet your ass if he’d been given the chance to kill a dude and walk away a free man, he’d have taken it rather than agreeing to the Wall. And this is because his guilt is not in question.

But.

This seems to break down in the face of Ser Duncan v. Aerion Brightflame, where Duncan’s guilt is not at all in question. He did strike Aerion, publicly in front of an enormous crowd. That happened and nobody denies it. But he still gets a trial and can invoke combat. It also breaks down in the face of Arya Stark v. Sandor Clegane; Sandor actually admits his guilt straight-up, doesn’t deny that he killed Mycah the butcher boy. (The only matter in question is if Mycah had struck Joffrey or not.) But Sandor still gets a trial to prove… what? That his actions were just? “Just” and “legal” are two different things.

The circumstances in which denying some a trial by combat or not is seen as a violation of their rights seems very murky at best.

racefortheironthrone:

Yes and yes, hence why his kinfolk were so violently outraged. 

“Just” and “legal” are two different things.

When we’re talking trial by combat, not really. Remember, the idea behind a trial by combat is that God/the Gods will favor the righteous party. It’s not necessarily a fact-finding operation (say if one party alleges and the other denies) as much as an experiment to find out whether the divine approved of said actions. And if they did, then those actions are retroactively legitimized.