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. 

Discussed here and here (in the comments). 

drilling4mana:

poorquentyn:

warsofasoiaf:

racefortheironthrone:

It’s actually hugely efficient – birth order is a very simple and straightforward standard, it keeps the estate intact instead of constanty subdividing the land amongst the children, etc. It doesn’t always work out, sometimes the eldest son is a poor choice, but it at least is a system people can agree on – which cuts down on succession-related violence. 

Here’s the problem with giving the land to “the most capable son” – in most cases, you’re not going to get consensus about who that is, as the other candidates are hardly likely to agree that they deserve to be disinherited. So you’re going to get constant competition between the children, you’re going to have fathers and mothers and other kinfolk lobbying for their preferred candidate, and inevitably someone’s going to decide to make the decision a lot more easy by killing all but one son. 

-SLAL

There are ever so many correct criticisms of primogeniture, but “inefficient” is not one of them. 

My inner Crusader King is having a field day with this one.

Oh hell yes. Ever start a campaign where your default succession is gavelkind? Now you know why people shifted to primogeniture, because trying to build a dynasty with that kind of succession law is incredibly difficult and involves a lot of civil wars. 

joannalannister:

Yeah, Aerys moved the court to Casterly Rock. He took Rhaegar with him:

in 266 AC, at Casterly Rock, Lady Joanna gave birth to a pair of twins, a girl and a boy […]. The following year, 267 AC, saw the death of Lord Tytos Lannister at the age of six-and-forty. […]  With his passing, Ser Tywin Lannister became the Lord of Casterly Rock and Warden of the West. When he returned to the west to attend his father’s funeral and set the westerlands in order, King Aerys decided to accompany him. Though His Grace left the queen behind in King’s Landing (Her Grace was pregnant with the child who proved to be the stillborn Princess Shaena), he took their eight-year-old son Rhaegar, Prince of Dragonstone, and more than half the court. For the better part of the next year, the Seven Kingdoms were ruled from Lannisport and Casterly Rock, where both the king and his Hand were in residence. 

The court returned to King’s Landing in 268 AC, and governance resumed as before…but it was plain to all that the friendship between the king and his Hand was fraying.

I don’t think Aerys wanted Rhaella by his side at this time. 

I only have the most rudimentary understanding of feudalism and medieval history, but I think if the king really, really liked your castle, the owner could “gift” it to him / the king could seize it. For example, Wolsey ~”gifted”~ Hampton Court Palace to Henry VIII, as I understand it, because Wolsey was on the outs with Henry. (Somebody might wanna check my facts here, cuz I don’t know a whole lot about it.)

So yeah, I think Aerys could live at Casterly Rock indefinitely if he wanted to. What a king *could* do and what a king *should* do politically aren’t always the same thing, though. It was really expensive for a king and his court to be your guest, so that would cost Tywin a fuckton of money and that would really only be something you would do to your political enemies (which is probably why Aerys did it for half a year, imo – idk I think it’s almost like a way to tax someone you don’t like that much). And if Aerys formally claimed Casterly Rock for his own, when Tywin hadn’t done anything, that doesn’t set a good precedent for the other lords in Westeros. The Rebellion happened because Aerys denied his lords due process under the law, and I think something like seizing Casterly Rock unprovoked would be viewed in a similar light. 

This might be a better question for @racefortheironthrone, because I’m not sure if I’m totally right here. 

This is mostly on track. A few clarifications:

1. It’s not quite the case that you could see your castle seized period; there had to be some specific legal pretext to justify the king taking your property. In this case, Wolsey had to give up Hampton Court in part b/c it had been a royal gift in the first place, although obviously he lost all of the money he put into the place (installing running water, glass windows, etc.).
2. In terms of royal occupation, I suppose technically a king could stay indefinitely, although it’s important to note that there’s a big difference between being a guest (even a permanent one) and seizing the castle for one’s own: right to incomes and feudal services, legal jurisdiction and so on, as long as the owner couldn’t think of a pretext to get rid of them. But if a pretext was offered, it would be very hard socially for a king to refuse. 

Probably more the former, I think that was a bit of a joke from Bloodraven. 

 "When this battle’s done I mean to call a council. Changes will be made. I meant to do it long ago, but … well, it does no good to speak of roads not taken. We shall talk when I return.“

Was the council Rhaegar was talking about a Great Council?

Yes. 

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

It’s actually hugely efficient – birth order is a very simple and straightforward standard, it keeps the estate intact instead of constanty subdividing the land amongst the children, etc. It doesn’t always work out, sometimes the eldest son is a poor choice, but it at least is a system people can agree on – which cuts down on succession-related violence. 

Here’s the problem with giving the land to “the most capable son” – in most cases, you’re not going to get consensus about who that is, as the other candidates are hardly likely to agree that they deserve to be disinherited. So you’re going to get constant competition between the children, you’re going to have fathers and mothers and other kinfolk lobbying for their preferred candidate, and inevitably someone’s going to decide to make the decision a lot more easy by killing all but one son.