If Tywin drops dead before the Purple Wedding, who gets the Rock?

If Tywin died suddenly before AGOT starts, who would inherit Casterly Rock? Jaimie is out, so would it go to Tyrion or Kevan?

ravenking1771 said:Hey there I saw the recent question about the Casterly Rock inheritance and I wanted to know how firmly did the medieval aristocracy adhere to inheritance I.e. Tyrion is Tywin eldest eligible make child and thus from a legal perspective his heir but Tywin does not consider him and if Tywin died before the events of the novel Tyrion would no doubt be challenged if not passed over by his family, so I wanted know how firmly did these governments respect inheritance rights?

Since I’ve gotten a couple questions about this, I figure I should probably consolidate them into one response rather than repeat myself. It depends on what Tywin set out in his will, and the balance of political power when it comes to both the claimants and whoever might enforce and/or recognize the validity of the will.

Certainly, Tyrion would have a very strong claim under Westerosi law; he is the oldest eligible male child of the deceased, and he had done nothing that would make him ineligible (like joining the Night’s Watch or the Citadel or the Faith).

However, whoever Tywin named in the will would also have a claim, and that claim would be buttressed by that person’s own lineage – if it’s Cersei, proximity would no doubt be stressed as well as the will; if it’s Kevan, then he’d be pointing to being the son of Tytos as well as Tywin’s brother as well as the wil. And so on.

But the balance of power is important: if Tywin dies pre-AGOT, Cersei is going to lobby for her own line (whether for herself or one of her children), and Robert might give in or he might give it to Tyrion out of spite, or he might want to give it to Kevan b/c Kevan fits his mental model of a strong Warden of the West (in the same way that he didn’t want a sickly boy to hold the Wardenship of the East). At the same time, Jon Arryn’s wishes would play a large role in that situation; he’s more of a traditionalist, so he might want it to go to Tyrion because Andal law says so and wills that go against the law lead to civil war and disorder.

If Tywin dies pre-Purple Wedding, it depends when exactly. If it’s after the Battle of Blackwater, Cersei is Regent and Tyrion has lost his handship, so he’s at a disadvantage. If it’s before the Battle of Blackwater, Tyrion has a significant advantage.

However, a lot would depend on how the Lannister lords at the Rock or at Harrenhal or at King’s Landing decide to jump: do they take their cues from Kevan as the oldest male Lannister on the spot, and does that mean he gets to play kingmaker or does he go for the Rock himself? Is their misogyny stronger than their ableism or vice versa? Do they fear that Tyrion’s heirs would inherit both the Rock and Winterfell, or that Cersei’s children would inherit both the Rock and the throne and/or Storm’s End?

How closely related do two people have to be before one killing the other is kinslaying? What about extenuating circumstances, such as Bloodraven killing Daemon while they were fighting on opposite sides in battle, or Stannis unconsciously killing Renly while the latter openly talked of killing him? Do you think killing through an intermediary or executioner still counts, or are the Gods not fond of rules lawyers?

I’ve talked about this before, but let’s tackle some of these situations:

Close relations: as I’ve discussed here and here, Rickard Karstark is completely full of shit. As GRRM himself says, “The other factor, which you haven’t raised, is degree of kinship. Killing a parent is probably worse than killing a sibling, but either one is a lot worse than killing a distant cousin. Lord Karstark was stretching that aspect of it when he tried to accuse Robb of kinslaying… but of course he was hoping to save his head.” I personally lean more to Karstark at least subconsciously wanting to die via suicide-by-cop, but it’s always good to get validated by Word of Author.

Killing in battle: according to GRRM, “Fighting a battle in which a brother dies might be frowned upon, but killing him with your own hand would be considered far worse.” I would argue that Bloodraven is called a kinslayer throughout Sworn Sword and Mystery Knight, because he organized an ambush and gave very specific orders to kill his half-brother and his half-nephews (as opposed to attacking the Blackfyre vanguard as a unit) – which is strong evidence of intent – and because he took up a bow himself, rather than standing back and giving the order.

Killing in a tourney/duel: Maekar is sometimes called a kinslayer because he definitely struck the killing blow in front of witnesses, and his defense that:

“Some men will say I meant to kill my brother. The gods know it is a lie, but I will hear the whispers till the day I die. And it was my mace that dealt the fatal blow, I have no doubt. The only other foes he faced in the melee were three Kingsguard, whose vows forbade them to do any more than defend themselves. So it was me. Strange to say, I do not recall the blow that broke his skull. Is that a mercy or a curse? Some of both, I think.”

…is hard to assess, given that it’s all about what Maekar’s mindset was.

Giving orders in battle: as GRRM mentions w/r/t to Renly, “another factor might be whether Renly gave any orders in respect to Stannis. Did he command Loras to kill him, or offer a reward to whosoever slew his brother? Did he tell his men to see that his brother was taken alive? Did he not address the issue either way?” And what is it that Renly says before the battle that never was?

“Ser Loras will break them, and after that it will be chaos…when my brother falls, see that no insult is done to his corpse. He is my own blood, I will not have his head paraded about on a spear.”

Yeah, there’s a reason he’s a bad man with good PR.

Unconscious killing: I’ve discussed Stannis here.

GIving orders to an executioner: I’ve looked through various sources, and I haven’t seen an example of kin ordering the execution of kin. We don’t see anyone saying anything in either way about Tywin getting ready to kill Tyrion, but you know what they say about absence of evidence…

How would Guest Right be reconciled with Westerosi customs around holding hostages, particularly killing them? A hostage would live beneath a person’s roof and eat their food, which should in theory protect them from being killed. Is this perhaps why, while taking hostages is common, killing them isn’t? Aside from other practical considerations?

I don’t think it’s an accident that there is a conflict between these two customs: guest right exists somewhat to create a systemic dis-incentive to kill hostages. And that’s not a bad thing, because the point of hostage-taking (and especially true with hostage-exchanges) is to create an alternative to wiping out your enemies root and branch, similar to how the custom of ransoms is there to encourage people to take defeated nobles prisoner instead of murdering them for the rings on their fingers.

However, there are cases where you need to execute a hostage. My guess is that the cultural circle is squared through giving hostages guest gifts:

“The Freys came here by sea. They have no horses with them, so I shall present each of them with a palfrey as a guest gift. Do hosts still give guest gifts in the south?“

“Some do, my lord. On the day their guest departs.”

“Perhaps you understand, then.“ (ADWD)

Thus, the hostage is no longer a guest and can be executed without violating the taboo.