Robbs strange understanding of honor

[Sullen]

Declaring for Tommen?

How would that be honorable?

Tommen is as much a bastard as Joffery. By all laws Stannis was king.

Eddard wanted to sit Stannis on the throne.

Had Robb of known this, he would definately declared for Stannis.

Robb doesn't know that Joffrey is a bastard, and Stannis has no proof of it.

Keeping in mind what the overwhelming majority of Westeros believes, if you oust Joffrey, then Tommen is next in the line of succession.

[Frey Pie]

Once you decide Joff isn't your King because reasons, you are abandoning the premise that 'right' is determinant in favour of the idea of preference.

I can't say I agree with this. Right is still the determinant factor, along with worth. George has told us that not just anyone can lead the north. Ned rebelled because aerys was not worthy, and robb stayed rebellious because Joffrey was not worthy. Right still was a factor, just not one that Joff or any Lannister had

[John Doe]

A bannerman can't just say "you're not right". He owes his leader fealty, as long as he doesn't break the laws.

[Frey Pie]

A bannerman can't just say "you're not right". He owes his leader fealty, as long as he doesn't break the laws.

a king also has a duty to his subjects, it goes both ways. And the Lannister regime had broken laws

[James Arryn]

Everyone in the seven kingdoms owes fealty to the Iron Throne since their birth.

Simply put, no. That's a complete misunderstanding of feudal order. You are infusing a nationalistic norm into a feudal construct; they are very different concepts. Feudalism is an actve process. Loyalty is given, not owed. This is why we see demands for people to come and swear fealty to new monarchs, because the oaths are the connective tissue. Nationalism, or the idea that loyalty is assumed, is reflective of a much later political theory, where degrees of responsiveness decreased the need for any formal acknowledgment. Because we live in a post-nationalistic society, we have lost the understanding of the importance of the steps we now write off as a given.

Of course, leaders have always pushed for as much automatic power as they can get, but feudalism has built-in ways that others can push back. This is what is meant by 'feudal balance'.

Again, people manage to heal and grieve without having sex. And Robb certainly new that it is dishonorable to sleep with Jeyne, Frey-betrothal ot not.

The first part isn't particularly relevant imo. You're being a bit arbitrary in where you set the expectation of commonality. The only situational parallel we see in the books is LF/Lysa, where there is an element of diminished capacity/mitigated judgment recognized by most.

The second is completely ignoring my point about specific capacity in this situation, which is of course your prerogative, but I don't find it compelling.

[James Arryn]

I can't say I agree with this. Right is still the determinant factor, along with worth. George has told us that not just anyone can lead the north. Ned rebelled because aerys was not worthy, and robb stayed rebellious because Joffrey was not worthy. Right still was a factor, just not one that Joff or any Lannister had

Do you remember how we meet the Reeds?

[James Arryn]

A bannerman can't just say "you're not right". He owes his leader fealty, as long as he doesn't break the laws.

Well, that's circular. Law is as the monarch decides. There is no codified law, and the idea that the king is subject to it requires some serious Magna Carta/prov. of Oxford type legal progression. It's really hard for people to 'un-know' aspects of the modern world, but it's important.

Aerys broke no laws. He tried people for treason, found them guilty, executed them. Only his means were a little unconventional, but there's no record of any law that's contravened, and in fact no one disputes it until he sends for more heads. And then Jon Arryn says 'you're not right', and because of many other factors, gets away with it. It's not a legal process, and if Arryn's just as right/wrong, but less effective, he goes down in history as a traitor, period.

[John Doe]

a king also has a duty to his subjects, it goes both ways. And the Lannister regime had broken laws

For the Starks, the king was a Baratheon.

[Frey Pie]

For the Starks, the king was a Baratheon.

Ruled by Lannisters and allowing what Robb thinks are Lannister atrocities

[John Doe]

Well, that's circular. Law is as the monarch decides. There is no codified law, and the idea that the king is subject to it requires some serious Magna Carta/prov. of Oxford type legal progression. It's really hard for people to 'un-know' aspects of the modern world, but it's important.

Aerys broke no laws. He tried people for treason, found them guilty, executed them. Only his means were a little unconventional, but there's no record of any law that's contravened, and in fact no one disputes it until he sends for more heads. And then Jon Arryn says 'you're not right', and because of many other factors, gets away with it. It's not a legal process, and if Arryn's just as right/wrong, but less effective, he goes down in history as a traitor, period.

I agree, what I meant was that a king had duties, and if he could/did not want to fulfill them, his bannermen had all reason to abandon him. Of course an act of rebellion is always illegal, and history is written by the winners, but I hope I made my point clear.

[Frey Pie]

Do you remember how we meet the Reeds?

When they came to swear fealty to winterfell?

[Darksnider05]

Well, that's circular. Law is as the monarch decides. There is no codified law, and the idea that the king is subject to it requires some serious Magna Carta/prov. of Oxford type legal progression. It's really hard for people to 'un-know' aspects of the modern world, but it's important.

Aerys broke no laws. He tried people for treason, found them guilty, executed them. Only his means were a little unconventional, but there's no record of any law that's contravened, and in fact no one disputes it until he sends for more heads. And then Jon Arryn says 'you're not right', and because of many other factors, gets away with it. It's not a legal process, and if Arryn's just as right/wrong, but less effective, he goes down in history as a traitor, period.

Jon Arryn didn't even rebel over that he rebelled over the call for the heads of his Wards.

[James Arryn]

I agree, what I meant was that a king had duties, and if he could/did not want to fulfill them, his bannermen have all reason to abandon him. Of course an act of rebellion is always illegal, and history is written by the winners, but I hope I made my point clear.

But the concept of unwritten mutual duties by definition allows for interpretation, and the concept of interpretation by definition allows for personal choice. In practice it will be rare for someone to defy the king because it's usually a losing hand w/e the morality of the issue, but in principle everyone is making constant choices of who they obey, and why or why not. The ones who get away with it are either big enough to back up their defiance or small enough to escape notice.

Just as a for instance, a subject could reject Stannis for Renly because he burns people, and be just as right/wrong as someone rejecting Aerys because he burns people. Only narrative interpretation draws a distinction. So where does 'right' begin/end?

[James Arryn]

When they came to swear fealty to winterfell?

Exactly. It's an active process. If it was passive, there's no need for oaths. You can argue it's symbolic, but then consider the 'symbolism' of Joffrey's demands to Robb.

[James Arryn]

Jon Arryn didn't even rebel over that he rebelled over the call for the heads of his Wards.

Right, I think you'll find that's what I wrote there.

[James Arryn]

Nutshell feudalism: the King owns all of the land, but none of the people. Lords rent chunks of the land from him in exchange for specific kinds of service. They in turn make the same deal with lesser lords, who make the same deal with their subjects, etc.

It's a very personal arrangement, but not about persons. It's about land and specific services as rent.

[juanml82]

Well, that's circular. Law is as the monarch decides. There is no codified law, and the idea that the king is subject to it requires some serious Magna Carta/prov. of Oxford type legal progression. It's really hard for people to 'un-know' aspects of the modern world, but it's important.

Aerys broke no laws. He tried people for treason, found them guilty, executed them. Only his means were a little unconventional, but there's no record of any law that's contravened, and in fact no one disputes it until he sends for more heads. And then Jon Arryn says 'you're not right', and because of many other factors, gets away with it. It's not a legal process, and if Arryn's just as right/wrong, but less effective, he goes down in history as a traitor, period.

That's not the case in Westeros, which indeed has a sort of Magna Carta legal frame. Joffrey argues your point to Tyrion when he's stripping Sansa and Tyrion rebukes him by reminding him that the Mad King did as he wanted. Stannis also points out at the King's duties when referring to his reasons to sail to aid the Watch.

And Aerys broke laws, although "customs" would be a more appropriate way to describe it: He didn't follow the proper judicial procedures when judging Rickard Stark.

Rickard asked for a trial by combat, which has a set of rules (such as either party being able to select a champion and likely the weapons used, else everyone will start with a loaded crossbow) and Aerys ignored those rules and, by mocking them, sentenced him to death without a proper, legal, trial. Fire was a cruel way to do it, but he could have invented the guillotine, said the guillotine was the champion of House Targaryen and the situation would be the same.

This turns even worse when he's asking for the heads of the Lords Paramount of the Stormlands and the (new one) of the North, without a trial. So Jon Arryn rebels.

Of course, the legal framework is murky. There is no impeachment. Ultimately, "Justice" is decided by warfare. But Kings aren't The Law in Westeros.

[Frey Pie]

Exactly. It's an active process. If it was passive, there's no need for oaths. You can argue it's symbolic, but then consider the 'symbolism' of Joffrey's demands to Robb.

I'm not sure where you are going with this. The reeds owe Robb fealty because of past acts and deeds, Stark worth and also because it is their right.

Joffrey similarly demands fealty. Fealty he does not deserve and has proven through his support of the rape of the riverlands and attack on the houses in question. This is why Robb needs an alternative, this is why he needs stannis. This is also the reason why Robb is made a king, more so then his personal charisma, blood or deeds on the battlefield

[James Arryn]

That's not the case in Westeros, which indeed has a sort of Magna Carta legal frame. Joffrey argues your point to Tyrion when he's stripping Sansa and Tyrion rebukes him by reminding him that the Mad King did as he wanted. Stannis also points out at the King's duties when referring to his reasons to sail to aid the Watch.

Right, that's the 'pushing back' thing I was describing. That was feudal balance before Magna Carta. I think you're mixing up the concepts of universal law and non-absolutism. The reason feudalism worked for so long WAS because of the inherent practical limits on Royal power, not because of legal or moral constraints. If you cost your barons more than you benefit them, and you do it long enough, bad enough, or to the wrong people, you get rebellion. And feudal states are almost perpetually in rebellion somewhere.

And Aerys broke laws, although "customs" would be a more appropriate way to describe it: He didn't follow the proper judicial procedures when judging Rickard Stark.

Jon Arryn didn't rebel over court procedures, but even if he had, that's not a defining legal line, it's one man's limit on cost/gain.

Rickard asked for a trial by combat, which has a set of rules (such as either party being able to select a champion and likely the weapons used, else everyone will start with a loaded crossbow) and Aerys ignored those rules and, by mocking them, sentenced him to death without a proper, legal, trial.

A set of rules as defined, where? And, again, this is not why/when Arryn rebelled.

Fire was a cruel way to do it, but he could have invented the guillotine, said the guillotine was the champion of House Targaryen and the situation would be the same.

Silence?

This turns even worse when he's asking for the heads of the Lords Paramount of the Stormlands and the (new one) of the North, without a trial. So Jon Arryn rebels.

It doesn't 'turn worse'. Rebellion is like marriage; you either are or aren't. He wasn't until the demands for Robert/Ned's heads, which means (according to any convention on unspoken law) it was approved. Silence equals consent.

Of course, the legal framework is murky. There is no impeachment. Ultimately, "Justice" is decided by warfare. But Kings aren't The Law in Westeros.

Who is, then? You're offering a body without a skeleton, and in practice someone will fill that space if it's not otherwise occupied. We see constant examples of feudal authority; it works until it doesn't. Tywin didn't apply a different law to the Reynes and Tarbecks than his father had, he just applied it more effectively.

[James Arryn]

I'm not sure where you are going with this. The reeds owe Robb fealty because of past acts and deeds, Stark worth and also because it is their right.

Joffrey similarly demands fealty. Fealty he does not deserve and has proven through his support of the rape of the riverlands and attack on the houses in question. This is why Robb needs an alternative, this is why he needs stannis. This is also the reason why Robb is made a king, more so then his personal charisma, blood or deeds on the battlefield

If fealty is automatic/assumed, it does not need to be sworn. The difference between lying and perjury is the oath. It's the same with rejecting and rebelling against an authority.

And again, you are talking about completely subjective criteria as though it's objective.