98 replies to this topic

[James Arryn]

I'm in danger of grinding an axe here, what with all the discussions about how/whether to apply modern moral or ethical standards to a pseudo-medieval world, but one aspect I see cited constantly which seems fundamentally wrong is some character or other described as having "a sense of entitlement."

The basic issue I have with that being seen as a weakness is that, when describing nobility (let alone royalty) in a feudal society, it's not a 'sense'. It's an awareness.

They ARE entitled. They don't feel they are; these aren't unrealistic expectations. In their world NOT believing yourself to be entitled to what you are, well, entitled to is as unrealistic as people believing they are entitled now in a society without inherited titles (at least in theory.)

It's not just that it's unfair...it's just wrong. They are specifically raised to believe they are entitled. There are differing versions of how that is balanced with responsibility depending on the region or culture, but when you are born into a title, you are entitled. And I don't just mean that literally. It may be important for a lord to know the men who serve under him, but it's just as important that the distinction that they do 'serve' and are 'under' him is clear.

And that applies as much for sympathetic characters (Robb) as unsympathetic ones (Joff).

They don't imagine these things...they are theirs by right. At some point they may very well need to defend that right, and there you might see shades of a meritocracy, but other than that this is how the world works.

Sorry for rant-not sure it even deserves a thread, but I have narrowly avoided derailing other threads with this tangent, and I thought it worthy of discussion.

Do people think I'm wrong? Or are there degrees? Or it it just a matter of how it plays on an unlikable character vs. a likable one?

[Buried Treasure]

You may have a point that the phrase is not quite the right one to be using, but I am one of those would critisice characters like Joff for their 'sense of entitlement'. For me it comes back to the rights vs. responsibilities argument. Sympathetic characters like Robb feel a duty to be the best lord / king they can be for the sake of those beneath them, whereas Joff and Cersei don't see that they owe anything to those that serve them.

If feudalism worked in the ideal way that only really exists in knight's oaths and septon's teachings there wouldn't be entitlement for the noble class - the warriors would use their swords to protect the farmers, who would offer a tithe in return for the protection and it would be mutually beneficial without exploitation because that would unchivalric. What we see is usually closer to 'warrior uses his sword against his own smallfolk and is the only one to benefit', and the entitlement comes from being able to get away with it.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

The "sense of entitlement" is mostly used otherwise. Yes, Robb is entitled to Winterfell. Yes, Arianne Martell is entitled to Dorne. But they rarely get categorized as having "a sense of entitlement". It is mostly Dany "having a sense of etitlement" towards Westeros, Slavers Bay and all the rest, or Cersei and queenship. Which is not a matter of inheritance, but expecting more than the law/common understanding/justice entitles them, sacrificing countless people. And this "more than just" is the part criticized.

[A Free Shadow]

James Arryn, on 06 April 2012 - 03:59 AM, said:

It may be important for a lord to know the men who serve under him, but it's just as important that the distinction that they do 'serve' and are 'under' him is clear.

That distinction is important, because everyone had a very specific role to play, lords and kings as well. They had duties, responsibilities. Like maester Luwin teaches Bran. So you must support your power with competence. If you operate only on "power is power", then it is your choice and a choice can be critizised.

[Awesome Oberyn Martell]

Bright Blue Eyes, on 06 April 2012 - 04:37 AM, said:

The "sense of entitlement" is mostly used otherwise. Yes, Robb is entitled to Winterfell. Yes, Arianne Martell is entitled to Dorne. But they rarely get categorized as having "a sense of entitlement". It is mostly Dany "having a sense of etitlement" towards Westeros, Slavers Bay and all the rest, or Cersei and queenship. Which is not a matter of inheritance, but expecting more than the law/common understanding/justice entitles them, sacrificing countless people. And this "more than just" is the part criticized.

Dany's sense of entitlement is now the same as Rickon/Sansa's towards Winterfell. I have no problem with all this sense of entitlement stuff, because you have to put aside modern values otherwise everyone would seem horrific to me. There are however good and bad rulers, Dany comes largely under the former for me as she recognises a duty to those she rules, Joffrey does not.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

Awesome Oberyn Martell, on 06 April 2012 - 05:03 AM, said:

Dany's sense of entitlement is now the same as Rickon/Sansa's towards Winterfell. I have no problem with all this sense of entitlement stuff, because you have to put aside modern values otherwise everyone would seem horrific to me. There are however good and bad rulers, Dany comes largely under the former for me as she recognises a duty to those she rules, Joffrey does not.

There are several differences between those.
1. The Starks have the support of almost the entire North, Dany has close to none and hadn't for fifteen years.
2. The Starks are raised in Winterfell, Dany is Essonian
3. Dany includes Slavers Bay, to which she has no right.
And that is the core. Some feel entitled to something to which they are indeed entitled and accept the accompanying responsibility, some to (vastly) more. The latter are those criticized, especially if they don't life up to the responsibility or didn't even try.

[FuzzyJAM]

Just because someone is literally "entitled" doesn't mean we have to approve of their "sense of entitlement".


Feudalism is a terrible system.  You're jumping the is/ought gap.  Just because Westeros is feudal doesn't mean it ought to be, or that those who gain from the system - i.e. nobles living a vastly superior lifestyle to their "smallfolk - deserve that gain.  I may not think the nobles all deserve the guillotine, but I'm not that far off.  Feeling that you "deserve" power purely for being born is not acceptable in my opinion, even if that's the way society works.  The nobility don't deserve their power, they simply have it.  It's understandable that people will have that strong sense of entitlement, but that doesn't mean I think it's OK.

[PatrickStormborn]

I think you've hit the nail on the head, OP. All of the nobility have a "sense of entitlement", most notably Stannis, so I don't really understand why so many readers focus on it to criticise certain characters. I don't believe there is one highborn POV character in the series who does not have some sense of entitlement.

Bright Blue Eyes, on 06 April 2012 - 05:16 AM, said:

There are several differences between those.
1. The Starks have the support of almost the entire North, Dany has close to none and hadn't for fifteen years.
2. The Starks are raised in Winterfell, Dany is Essonian
3. Dany includes Slavers Bay, to which she has no right.
And that is the core. Some feel entitled to something to which they are indeed entitled and accept the accompanying responsibility, some to (vastly) more. The latter are those criticized, especially if they don't life up to the responsibility or didn't even try.

1. Do they? I imagine that, if the Boltons were an honourable house, many of the North would not care who was in Winterfell. The common people certainly don't care.
2. The Starks identify as being Northern; Dany identifies as being Westerosi. She was raised as a Westerosi: she follows their religion, she speaks their language, etc. Identity is more than where you were raised.
3. Dany is the Queen of Meereen, by right of conquering. She didn't feel entitled to it; she took it because she thought it was the right thing to do, in an attempt to avoid what happened in Astapor.

[David C. Hunter]

PatrickStormborn, on 06 April 2012 - 05:59 AM, said:

I think you've hit the nail on the head, OP. All of the nobility have a "sense of entitlement", most notably Stannis, so I don't really understand why so many readers focus on it to criticise certain characters. I don't believe there is one highborn POV character in the series who does not have some sense of entitlement.



1. Do they? I imagine that, if the Boltons were an honourable house, many of the North would not care who was in Winterfell. The common people certainly don't care.
2. The Starks identify as being Northern; Dany identifies as being Westerosi. She was raised as a Westerosi: she follows their religion, she speaks their language, etc. Identity is more than where you were raised.
3. Dany is the Queen of Meereen, by right of conquering. She didn't feel entitled to it; she took it because she thought it was the right thing to do, in an attempt to avoid what happened in Astapor.

PatrickStormborn we have battled everywhere, but I will say this(Finally). I agree with you that Stannis does have a sense of entitlement probably more than anyone else in the series. I think arguments on this forum start because people feel as if certain characters have more of a 'right' to have that sense of entitlement, which of course is completely objective.

In terms of the Northern culture, it would seem that the 'common people' of the North and the Lords of the North are more closely related than the common people of certain southern territories and their lords. I like the Lannisters in this series, but is obvious that Cersei does not give two shits about the common folks. It would seem that the lords of the north and their people are more or less on a closer level. I mean Greatjon is a lord, but I sincerely doubt he will not look down on the common folks. That's just my observation though.

I also agree with you that in terms of actual history their have been plenty of exiled rulers who eventually came home to their country that they never knew and became good rulers. I personally just don't believe Dany will be one of them, but I could obviously be wrong.

In terms of your 3rd point with Dany is that I can see why she did what she did in Mereen (intially), but if she really felt entitled to westeros than she should have left at the end of book 3. Now she is prolonging them inevitable because no matter when she leaves now, she is screwing over slaver's bay. She will have to in order to leave.

[Apple Martini]

Quote

1. Do they? I imagine that, if the Boltons were an honourable house, many of the North would not care who was in Winterfell. The common people certainly don't care.

Uh, if the Boltons were an honorable house, they never would have sold out the Starks in the first place and wouldn't be in a position where they were selling themselves as the legitimate paramount house in the North.

[Lord Littlefinger's Lash]

Bright Blue Eyes, on 06 April 2012 - 04:37 AM, said:

The "sense of entitlement" is mostly used otherwise. Yes, Robb is entitled to Winterfell. Yes, Arianne Martell is entitled to Dorne. But they rarely get categorized as having "a sense of entitlement". It is mostly Dany "having a sense of etitlement" towards Westeros, Slavers Bay and all the rest, or Cersei and queenship. Which is not a matter of inheritance, but expecting more than the law/common understanding/justice entitles them, sacrificing countless people. And this "more than just" is the part criticized.

Wait isn't Dany entitled to Westeros? As much as Bran or Rickon are entitled to Winterfell.

[Lord Littlefinger's Lash]

Bright Blue Eyes, on 06 April 2012 - 05:16 AM, said:

There are several differences between those.
1. The Starks have the support of almost the entire North, Dany has close to none and hadn't for fifteen years.
2. The Starks are raised in Winterfell, Dany is Essonian
3. Dany includes Slavers Bay, to which she has no right.
And that is the core. Some feel entitled to something to which they are indeed entitled and accept the accompanying responsibility, some to (vastly) more. The latter are those criticized, especially if they don't life up to the responsibility or didn't even try.

1)Most of the people in Westeros don't even know she's alive. So how could she possibly have their support?
2)Was Rickon really raised at Winterfell, how old was he when he left?
3)  Right of conquest?

Edited by Lord Littlefinger's Lash, 10 April 2012 - 10:09 PM.

[PatrickStormborn]

Apple Martini, on 06 April 2012 - 12:42 PM, said:

Uh, if the Boltons were an honorable house, they never would have sold out the Starks in the first place and wouldn't be in a position where they were selling themselves as the legitimate paramount house in the North.

If Roose Bolton had not played a part in the Red Wedding, do you really think the Northern lords would care that he was ruling them? Yes, I do believe that some of the lords are loyal to the Starks, but I do not believe they would act on this loyalty if Roose Bolton had not betrayed the North.

David C. Simmons, on 06 April 2012 - 06:17 AM, said:

PatrickStormborn we have battled everywhere, but I will say this(Finally). I agree with you that Stannis does have a sense of entitlement probably more than anyone else in the series. I think arguments on this forum start because people feel as if certain characters have more of a 'right' to have that sense of entitlement, which of course is completely objective.

In terms of the Northern culture, it would seem that the 'common people' of the North and the Lords of the North are more closely related than the common people of certain southern territories and their lords. I like the Lannisters in this series, but is obvious that Cersei does not give two shits about the common folks. It would seem that the lords of the north and their people are more or less on a closer level. I mean Greatjon is a lord, but I sincerely doubt he will not look down on the common folks. That's just my observation though.

I'm glad we finally agree on something. But I'm not sure about the Northern lords being closer to their smallfolk... The North has a smaller population than the South, so it is quite likely that they are less alienated from them than the Southern Lords. But I really doubt Manderly, for example, is any closer to his smallfolk than any Southern lord.  

Quote

I also agree with you that in terms of actual history their have been plenty of exiled rulers who eventually came home to their country that they never knew and became good rulers. I personally just don't believe Dany will be one of them, but I could obviously be wrong.

In terms of your 3rd point with Dany is that I can see why she did what she did in Mereen (intially), but if she really felt entitled to westeros than she should have left at the end of book 3. Now she is prolonging them inevitable because no matter when she leaves now, she is screwing over slaver's bay. She will have to in order to leave.

Whether or not Dany will actually take the throne and become a good ruler is irrelevant to this thread, but I think we can both agree that she is Westerosi. Her parents were from Westeros, and she was raised by Westerosi. I also believe that Aegon, fake or not, is Westerosi.

[Lord Littlefinger's Lash]

Apple Martini, on 06 April 2012 - 12:42 PM, said:

Uh, if the Boltons were an honorable house, they never would have sold out the Starks in the first place and wouldn't be in a position where they were selling themselves as the legitimate paramount house in the North.

If the Starks were an honorable house they never would have rebelled against their rightful king to seat a usurper on the throne.  If the Starks were an honorable house the King in the North would have never broken his sworn word to marry a Frey and they would still be ruling in the North.

[OldCorvid]

She was raised by Westerosi, but she doesn't know the place she would rule. She hasn't lived there.

PatrickStormborn, on 06 April 2012 - 01:09 PM, said:

If Roose Bolton had not played a part in the Red Wedding, do you really think the Northern lords would care that he was ruling them? Yes, I do believe that some of the lords are loyal to the Starks, but I do not believe they would act on this loyalty if Roose Bolton had not betrayed the North.



I'm glad we finally agree on something. But I'm not sure about the Northern lords being closer to their smallfolk... The North has a smaller population than the South, so it is quite likely that they are less alienated from them than the Southern Lords. But I really doubt Manderly, for example, is any closer to his smallfolk than any Southern lord.  



Whether or not Dany will actually take the throne and become a good ruler is irrelevant to this thread, but I think we can both agree that she is Westerosi. Her parents were from Westeros, and she was raised by Westerosi. I also believe that Aegon, fake or not, is Westerosi.

Well sort of, and sort of not. She hasn't lived there. That's pretty important for whether or not someone is "of" a place.

I think in general the "sense of entitlement" usually means a view of the world that demands a priori respect without a balancing sense of responsibility in the other direction.

[Awesome Oberyn Martell]

Bright Blue Eyes, on 06 April 2012 - 05:16 AM, said:

There are several differences between those.
1. The Starks have the support of almost the entire North, Dany has close to none and hadn't for fifteen years.
2. The Starks are raised in Winterfell, Dany is Essonian
3. Dany includes Slavers Bay, to which she has no right.
And that is the core. Some feel entitled to something to which they are indeed entitled and accept the accompanying responsibility, some to (vastly) more. The latter are those criticized, especially if they don't life up to the responsibility or didn't even try.

1. Dany would have the support of Dorne. And when she comes to invade may well have the support of the Iron Islands (Victarion) and may command some loyalty from others such as (Jon Connington and the Stormlands, the Mormonts, Tyrion) and who knows if any opportunistic small lords jump on the bandwagon.
2. Dany is Westerosi.
3. Robert had no right to Westeros, Aegon had no right to Westeros etc.

ETA: Where has Rickon shown any sign of responsibility, in fact Bran constantly moaned of the responsibilities of being Lord of Winterfell. And Daenerys accepted that being Queen was not all about her in Meereen, she saw that she had duties. Now she hasn't been raised like YG's upbringing if we believe Varys but she isn't Joffrey either.

Edited by Awesome Oberyn Martell, 06 April 2012 - 01:31 PM.

[The Wolfswood]

Lord Littlefinger, on 06 April 2012 - 01:13 PM, said:

If the Starks were an honorable house they never would have rebelled against their rightful king to seat a usurper on the throne.  If the Starks were an honorable house the King in the North would have never broken his sworn word to marry a Frey and they would still be ruling in the North.

Incorrect.  Aerys Targaryen stopped being the rightful King when people stopped acknowledging him as such.  In ordering the unjustified and unusually cruel deaths of Brandon and Rickard Stark, as well as demanding the heads of Ned Stark and Robert Baratheon, Aerys violated the unspoken contract between him and the lords that served under him.  A King can not do whatever he likes.  Kings remain Kings only as long as the people allow them - the fact that the people rose up against House Targaryen destroys any right they have to the throne.  It may not be a unanimous rebellion, true, but House Stark had every reason to oppose Aerys when he unjustly sought Ned Stark's head.  Ned hadn't done anything, making Aerys in the wrong.  He suffered for that.

[FuzzyJAM]

Lord Littlefinger, on 06 April 2012 - 01:13 PM, said:

If the Starks were an honorable house they never would have rebelled against their rightful king to seat a usurper on the throne.  If the Starks were an honorable house the King in the North would have never broken his sworn word to marry a Frey and they would still be ruling in the North.

What's dishonourable about a country thousands of years old reclaiming independence after 300 years of living under incredibly corrupt foreign rule?

Edit: Or did you mean Robert's Rebellion?  I'm not seeing how it's dishonourable to remove an evil bastard committing crimes against the realm from the throne.  Arguably not giving the throne to Viserys afterwards was dishonourable, but who knows what Ned wanted there?  And, of course, this ignores the fact that, theoretically, a king only rules at the behest of his nobles who rule at the behest of their people.  There is no divine mandate in Westeros.

Edited by FuzzyJAM, 06 April 2012 - 01:39 PM.

[Lord Littlefinger's Lash]

FuzzyJAM, on 06 April 2012 - 01:37 PM, said:

What's dishonourable about a country thousands of years old reclaiming independence after 300 years of living under incredibly corrupt foreign rule?

Edit: Or did you mean Robert's Rebellion?  I'm not seeing how it's dishonourable to remove an evil bastard committing crimes against the realm from the throne.  Arguably not giving the throne to Viserys afterwards was dishonourable, but who knows what Ned wanted there?  And, of course, this ignores the fact that, theoretically, a king only rules at the behest of his nobles who rule at the behest of their people.  There is no divine mandate in Westeros.

i meant Robert's Rebellion, he broke his sworn oath of fealty. That's the dishonor.  There's no magna carta, either. The kings rules, because the king rules.

[Lord Littlefinger's Lash]

theythg, on 06 April 2012 - 01:34 PM, said:

Incorrect.  Aerys Targaryen stopped being the rightful King when people stopped acknowledging him as such.

where does it say that? And why did Ned want to banish Jamie Lannister to the wall if Aerys' wasn't the king anymore?  

Quote

  In ordering the unjustified and unusually cruel deaths of Brandon and Rickard Stark, as well as demanding the heads of Ned Stark and Robert Baratheon, Aerys violated the unspoken contract between him and the lords that served under him.  A King can not do whatever he likes.  Kings remain Kings only as long as the people allow them - the fact that the people rose up against House Targaryen destroys any right they have to the throne.  It may not be a unanimous rebellion, true, but House Stark had every reason to oppose Aerys when he unjustly sought Ned Stark's head.  Ned hadn't done anything, making Aerys in the wrong.  He suffered for that.

I didn't say they didn't have a reason to fight, I said it was dishonorable.