Jump to content

The rights of Tyrion


Wmarshal

Recommended Posts

Trial by combats aren't people screaming death, it is the defended openly saying, if that happens I live, if this happens I die. Tyrion lost, and for that forfeited his life and claims. By laws of Westeros he has to die. When he won his in the Vale, there is a reason Cat could not rearrest, because she couldn't no matter how much power she had, a trial by combats ruling is universal. The only one that could answer for the gods and free him from death is HS. Jaime on the other hand did nothing to commit himself to trial or death. He made no promise to gods to have himself killed. Tyrion did.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Same thing will happen if, say, Tyrion supports Dany and Dany wins the IT. Oh dear, the Imp killed the usurper Joffrey and the betrayer/murderer of her family Tywin? Why should she care again?

In short because showing favour to someone with as an infamous a reputation as Tyrion could very well spark a rebellion which could very well throw her right back off the Iron Throne. Especially if she was to respond violently to such an uprising...

It is arguably the oldest excuse for an uprising 'Let's get rid the 'evil councillor' who is manipulating the ruler for their own gain'. The Wars of the Roses began that way the Yorkists were not so much pissed with sweet simple-minded Henry VI as those around him like Queen Margaret and Somerset. Then there's Edward II giving lands to his favourites Piers Gaveston and Hugh Despenser that pissed off the barons so much they overthrew him and had him murdered. The English Civil war arguably started because Charles I tried to give Thomas Wentworth, Earl of Strafford (incidently popularly called 'Black Tom Tyrant' in his day) command of an army to fight the Scots - if you don't know ultimately Charles ends up short a head.

It is unfair however one must acknowledge Tyrion already had the 'evil councillor' rep way back in ACoK the riot in King's Landing was directed at the 'Half-man' who the people ignorantly blamed for all problems in the city, Now he is the 'evil councillor on the run for murdering his own father and his nephew the BOY king Joffrey'.

Anyone who would take Tyrion into their trust would be wise to consider whether his help is worth the damage his bad reputation would do to their PR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In short because showing favour to someone with as an infamous a reputation as Tyrion could very well spark a rebellion which could very well throw her right back off the Iron Throne. Especially if she was to respond violently to such an uprising...

It is arguably the oldest excuse for an uprising 'Let's get rid the 'evil councillor' who is manipulating the ruler for their own gain'. The Wars of the Roses began that way the Yorkists were not so much pissed with sweet simple-minded Henry VI as those around him like Queen Margaret and Somerset. Then there's Edward II giving lands to his favourites Piers Gaveston and Hugh Despenser that pissed off the barons so much they overthrew him and had him murdered. The English Civil war arguably started because Charles I tried to give Thomas Wentworth, Earl of Strafford (incidently popularly called 'Black Tom Tyrant' in his day) command of an army to fight the Scots - if you don't know ultimately Charles ends up short a head.

It is unfair however one must acknowledge Tyrion already had the 'evil councillor' rep way back in ACoK the riot in King's Landing was directed at the 'Half-man' who the people ignorantly blamed for all problems in the city, Now he is the 'evil councillor on the run for murdering his own father and his nephew the BOY king Joffrey'.

Anyone who would take Tyrion into their trust would be wise to consider whether his help is worth the damage his bad reputation would do to their PR.

You're explaining why it would be a bad idea, and I mostly concur. I don't think it would be a wise move either. But the thread is about the legality of Tyrion backing his claim. The OP posits that, since Tyrion was guilty of a major crime(s), all his claims are automatically forfeit and he absolutely cannot have Casterly Rock. A stance that contradicts the text, IMO, because legality in Westeros is relative. What was a crime against Aerys is not a crime against Robert, thus Robert did not punish Jaime for the exact same crime Tyrion has been considered guilty of, minus the kinslaying which is just cherry on the criminal cake. If whoever holds the IT has no intention of punishing Tyrion for his crime, his guilt would be null and void, is what I'm saying. Whenever it would be a good idea is another question entirely.

For example, it is often touted that the punishment for treason is death. Yet Cercei did not want to execute Ned; instead he was to be sent to the Wall, despite the fact that The Ned confessed his ''crime'' an was thus 100% guilty in the Crown's eyes. Legally, Joffrey had every right to behead him, yet it still comes across as a shock for most because it was not a pragmatic thing to do. Stannis does not execute all those who ''betrayed'' him, despite them earning a shave of their necks by his own word since they're too valuable. Tywin himself apparently thought about sending Tyrion to the Wall instead of having him killed, even after the Imp is considered 100% guilty of both kingslaying and kinslaying. Robb was urged to spare Lord Karstark despite having full legal rights to kill him, meaning it was a viable alternative. In short, law in Westeros is what the queen/king says it is, if they can back it up that is. If Dany says Tyrion can have the Rock, and they both manage to handle the fallout of his nomination, he will be Lord of Casterly Rock. People will remember his crimes, surely, but he will be pardoned and the legality this will supplant the legality of his guilt if the head honcho says so.

@WMarshall: Trial by combat is not ''your side loses = you die', automatically, as shown by Tywin's nominal intention of shipping his son to the Wall. It determines one's guilt, nothing more. It just happens that a lot of crimes in Westeros are punished by death. Jaime was obviously guilty, thus no trial required.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Tyrion were to show up alone, unarmed, and demand the Rock then no, he'd have no right to it. Someone would point out that he lost his trial, and is also accused of murdering his father, and that someone would have the swords to press the point of the issue, as Tyrion really isn't that popular at all in Westeros. He's somehow managed to catch all the worst popularity aspects of being a Lannister, while simultaneously not having a single benefit.



If he has the military force to back his claim, the pardon of someone on the Iron Throne, and the savvy to survive the extended Lannister family tree who would welcome the chance to exploit his weak claim and see him and any descendants dead, then sure, he has a right.



That's kind of how these things work.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tyrion's rights are technically forfeit by the laws of Westeros, but I think Dany would grant him a pardon. I think when Tyrion takes CR, the Western lords will pledge fealty to him and Dany. The Western lords were bound to Tywin not out of love but fear and his aura of invincibility, and Tyrion will have a larger army than Tywin and three dragons. Tyrion will also have proved that be his father's son in the second Dance with a reputation close to that of his father's.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not going to argue with you Fire Eater, I find this question of mind has but one answer: wait for winds. So to save us the dance on to the next thread we go.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not the same case. Nobody loved Tywin, and I'm sure many of them were happy to see him dead.

It's not about who, it's about what and how: Lord Karstark got executed for murder and treason, House Karstark abandoned Robb's case, and yet they are still respected as any noble house. Walder Frey, however, murdered guests under his own roof, and now the Freys are hated and despised by everyone everywhere. In the Vale. In King's Landing. Robb was nothing but an enemy and a usurper to Stannis, nevertheless Davos has nothing but disdain for the Freys.

It's not about personal likes or dislikes, it's about the rules. A son who murdered his father and got away with that? Worse - earned inheritance this way? Nope, lords won't like it one bit, and love, or lack thereof, for Tywin has nothing to do with it. Giving Tyrion the Rock would be a monumental PR blunder. I'm not saying I'm certain Dany won't do it, but if she will, that will be a really bad move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, he has no right. Cersei is a woman and Jaime is a KG. By rights it should've gone to Kevan, but now that Kevan's dead, as are Tywin's other brothers, the heir could be Lancel, but he's the lord of Darry and I don't see him accepting the position, so... it's gotta' be Martyn. Still, if Tyrion wins Dany over and takes over Westeros with her, then he can be legitimized again, so it's more boasting about how he's going to be the heir, and not that he actually IS the heir.

This. The Lannisters are a large family with cadet branches. It's not just Cersei vs Tyrion, it's Martyn and Damion Lannister and his son as well. One of them could easily decide that he has a better claim than the kinslaying dwarf or the adulterous woman, and the Lords of the Westerlands might well support him. Then you'd have another in-family succession fight.

In response to the OP:

Legality in Westeros is flexible and depends a lot on military might. So if Tyrion came down on Casterly Rock with dragons, yeah, the law might bend. In that, I agree with Jasta11. But. Even with military might, Tyron can't make the lords like him, and after what he's done, and what people think he's done, I don't think they ever will. He might end up with Northern-style rebellion against the Boltons on his hands, with guerrilla warfare and enemies everywhere. Even if he does have a legal right, practically, there's no way he'll ever hold Casterly Rock for long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thomas Becket only became a martyr and was used to strengthen the faith because Henry lost and couldn't over throw the faith.



Henry VIII made some martyrs to the catholic faith as well, the Maid of Kent, Thomas More, Bishop Fisher, Thomas Cromwell. Doesn't change that at the end of the day he won and changed the course of human history and the history of the catholic church.



Yet what Henry VIII did is still affecting the times to this day.



If he hadn't broken from the faith, America more than likely would have become a new haven for Catholics. Instead Puritans on the run from England because they behead the king but that's a different story.



You act like when Henry broke from the faith that he wasn't in a sea of Catholics on his own shores. Come on. He just broke a 1000 year old tradition and was excommunicated for his troubles. Most of England was devote to the Catholic Church. The pope ordered the execution of his daughter and almost succeeded a couple of times. Not to mention during Edwards reign there were plots to crown Mary. During her reign there were plots to crown Elizabeth and during hers the Pope offered Mary Steward Elizabeth's crown and she wondered why she spent 20 years in lock up and then beheaded because she wanted to switch the realm back to Catholism.



Yet you are forgetting that part of the reason that the Pope nor his allies couldn't do anything is they were too busy fighting each other to deal with Henry. The pope at the time that henry first asked for annulment was a little busy being sacked by Charles V of the holy roman empire to do anything really.



No king can fight the HS? Really tell that to the knights of Templar whom were brought down by the power of the pope and King Phillip the Fair of France after spending many years fighting for them and protecting them. So I guess that Aerys I he didn't fight the faith, he just sat back and let them run amuck?



Philip had wanted to do away with the knights for years but could never get it done. He then used the papacy to attaint the knight strip them of their power and then hunted them down like they were dogs.



When Charles VIII of France on his way to Naples he had to pass though Rome. You know who he met there? Pope Alexander VI whom had to walk very carefully because the king had powerful enemies of the Borgia's with him whispering in his ear to do away with Alexander and name another pope. Want to know why they were looking to Charles to call for a hearing against Alexander? Because Kings are god's tools here on earth having a little something called divine right and all. Popes and Kings have to be wary of each other. One can call on the gods and the other can call on swords. As Varys said it's all matter of who's wielding that sword at the end of the day.



Have you ever heard of the great schisms there were like 3 of them in the last 150 years of the dark ages. Kings making and unmaking kings.



Popes have been threatened since the office was first created. Popes have been murdered, the office may not go away but the man in the office is mortal. All men must die and the high septon may end of sleeping the sleep that doesn't end if he's not careful.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

The sparrows hold control, HS dies, one them replace him.

You seem so kin to forget all religious men serving Stannis are plotting to murder Melisandre because they believe she is what keeps Stannis from the seven. The Stan as you forget are deep in Rh'llor.

What points have I made that involved all men abandoning kings? I have brought this whole time that killing an HS or taking his power when you can simple ask ask him to free Tyrion for something you easily give to some else that Tyrion doesn't is going to start a revolt. Now what about the Stan proves me wrong?

The sparrows won't be replacing the HS if the process is hijacked by the king. Just because they hold control now doesn't mean they'll keep it. The sparrows hijacked the process once, but next time they'll be anticipated, and they might not succeed a second time.

You've been arguing that the power of the Faith will ensure that Tyrion never gets his lordship even if the king on the IT decides to grant it to him. I've been arguing that no, the Faith doesn't actually hold enough power to necessarily stop the installment, and in any case they might not even bother to make a stink about it.

And no, I'm not forgetting about Rh'llor. I'm talking about the fact that Stannis' conversion to Rh'llor doesn't cause any of his Seven-worshiping followers to abandon him except for Lord Sunglass. Yeah, some of them plot against Melisandre, but they don't abandon Stannis, even though Stannis committed brazen sacrilege against the Seven by burning the Sept on Dragonstone.

You seem to think that law and religion are super duper extremely important to everybody in Westeros and that tons of people will rise up to defend the principle of trial by combat. This idea is totally contradicted by the actual events in the book, where we very often see laws and customs and religious norms turned malleable, rationalized away, and even flagrantly disregarded when people in power find it convenient. They do sometimes pay a price for such breaches, but not always. The idea that Tyrion losing his trial by combat totally cuts him off forever from being Lord of Casterly Rock is nuts. It does make it harder, but not even close to impossible. Because that's not how Westeros works. The fact of the matter is that Westerosi laws are made of pudding, not iron. Tyrion's succession as Lord of the Rock can be easily rationalized. If enough people with swords decide to rationalize it, then it will be rationalized.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you.



If the Westeros had laws like those here in this time then no there is no way that Tyrion gets away with it. BUT in a world where the strength of a sword can be used to enforce or disregard certain laws. Iron clad laws go out the window and it becomes a game of keeping the sword from taking your head off


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tyrion might well be better off than people imagine. He has successfully fled the jurisdiction of Westeros. That is all part of the justice system.



The guillotine was actually invented in Yorkshire in the 1500s. It was set up in Halifax. Curiously it was only a few hundred yards from the boundary of the Forrest of Hardwick. If the condemned somehow managed to escape and get clear they could avoid execution. And two men did, Dinnis and Lacey. Though Lacey returned to Halifax later on and got the chop.



So escape may well mean that Tyrion gets to avoid the execution.



The Tywin part is a little easier to get out of because there is no proof that Tyrion was to blame and Varys murders Tywin's successor as Hand while Tyrion is provably elsewhere. So the chances are that someone else will be blamed for the murder of Tywin and Kevan.



Tyrion has to go and find Tysha at some point and Casterly Rock is one of the few places we haven't seen. But I think it more likely that Gerion gets the family seat as Tyrion turns out to be a secret Tagerean.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

The sparrows won't be replacing the HS if the process is hijacked by the king. Just because they hold control now doesn't mean they'll keep it. The sparrows hijacked the process once, but next time they'll be anticipated, and they might not succeed a second time.

You've been arguing that the power of the Faith will ensure that Tyrion never gets his lordship even if the king on the IT decides to grant it to him. I've been arguing that no, the Faith doesn't actually hold enough power to necessarily stop the installment, and in any case they might not even bother to make a stink about it.

And no, I'm not forgetting about Rh'llor. I'm talking about the fact that Stannis' conversion to Rh'llor doesn't cause any of his Seven-worshiping followers to abandon him except for Lord Sunglass. Yeah, some of them plot against Melisandre, but they don't abandon Stannis, even though Stannis committed brazen sacrilege against the Seven by burning the Sept on Dragonstone.

You seem to think that law and religion are super duper extremely important to everybody in Westeros and that tons of people will rise up to defend the principle of trial by combat. This idea is totally contradicted by the actual events in the book, where we very often see laws and customs and religious norms turned malleable, rationalized away, and even flagrantly disregarded when people in power find it convenient. They do sometimes pay a price for such breaches, but not always. The idea that Tyrion losing his trial by combat totally cuts him off forever from being Lord of Casterly Rock is nuts. It does make it harder, but not even close to impossible. Because that's not how Westeros works. The fact of the matter is that Westerosi laws are made of pudding, not iron. Tyrion's succession as Lord of the Rock can be easily rationalized. If enough people with swords decide to rationalize it, then it will be rationalized.

Anti Pope time, sparrow style!

I am saying no one wants him and the only way he kind of can be freed is he get the faith's okay. Then Tyrion is a false lord who anyone can gut, be it he is a legally a dead man.

As you see with Davos, they largely blame Mel for all that.

For the common folk, yes, it is, for they are heavily influenced by religion and law. What are you talking about? The law being broken always has affect, unless someone hides it incredible well. Westeros works by laws, some try to change it, but they are met with foes. Um lets see, someone tries to install a incest bastard? War. Someone tried to install himself over his nephew? war. Someone tries to become king with no claim to speak of? stabbing, then other poisoned. Someone tries to kill random people? Is hunted. And that is the point, the amount of blood needed to put a asshole no one likes who the Westerlanders would probably poison at some point, is ridiculous and unneeded, and in the end his claim is worst pudding because by laws older then the IT he should be dead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...