Stormking902 Posted November 22, 2016 Share Posted November 22, 2016 I have read the books but do not remember if there is any type of legal system in regards to smallfolks against Nobles obviously a noble would win every case but can a smallfolk go to say Tywin Lannister with claims of rape in murder against one of tywins bannerman does Tywin by law have investigate wink wink. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordImp Posted November 22, 2016 Share Posted November 22, 2016 No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fattest Leech Posted November 22, 2016 Share Posted November 22, 2016 They have the right to remain silent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wolves Posted November 22, 2016 Share Posted November 22, 2016 2 hours ago, Stormking902 said: I have read the books but do not remember if there is any type of legal system in regards to smallfolks against Nobles obviously a noble would win every case but can a smallfolk go to say Tywin Lannister with claims of rape in murder against one of tywins bannerman does Tywin by law have investigate wink wink. I want to say that yes they do have rights but are grossly ignored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scootaloo Stark Posted November 22, 2016 Share Posted November 22, 2016 They don't have rights written down in a constitution. Their rights are dependent on their Lord and basically what rights he allows them to have. The rights change with Lord and time and aren't set in stone. And no one's really gonna care what a Lord does to his smallfolk. Some things, like raping and killing them, wouldn't exactly look good in the eyes of other Lords, but it still wouldn't be illegal. Smallfolk could come before a Lord and complain that his son raped them and burned their fields, and a normal Lord would punish his son.. but he doesn't have to. He can do whatever he wants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevets Posted November 22, 2016 Share Posted November 22, 2016 After Roose Bolton raped Ramsay's mother, he killed her husband so Rickard Stark wouldn't find out. This at least suggests that bannerman can be punished for serious crimes against their smallfolk should their overlord find out. Whether or not they would be would be largely would depend on the nature of the offense and the overlord. Starks might be more likely than others, for example, to exact punishment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scootaloo Stark Posted November 22, 2016 Share Posted November 22, 2016 12 minutes ago, Nevets said: After Roose Bolton raped Ramsay's mother, he killed her husband so Rickard Stark wouldn't find out. This at least suggests that bannerman can be punished for serious crimes against their smallfolk should their overlord find out. Whether or not they would be would be largely would depend on the nature of the offense and the overlord. Starks might be more likely than others, for example, to exact punishment. But that's just because Bolton knows that Stark wouldn't like this treatment of the smallfolk. Which is just Lord Rickard's personal opinion. If he was a man like Bolton, then Bolton wouldn't have had to be so secret about it. It's still not written down laws, just whatever the Lords like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukle Posted November 22, 2016 Share Posted November 22, 2016 I think they do - it is heavily implied in the World of Ice and Fire that Aegon V enshrined some rights to common folk and curbed the rights of nobles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scootaloo Stark Posted November 22, 2016 Share Posted November 22, 2016 36 minutes ago, Yukle said: I think they do - it is heavily implied in the World of Ice and Fire that Aegon V enshrined some rights to common folk and curbed the rights of nobles. And Tywin Lannister took them away again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scott Malkinson Posted November 22, 2016 Share Posted November 22, 2016 32 minutes ago, Yukle said: I think they do - it is heavily implied in the World of Ice and Fire that Aegon V enshrined some rights to common folk and curbed the rights of nobles. Only those were undone by Aerys (read: Tywin) so they're not in place anymore. Still, they legally must have some rights... 5 hours ago, Scootaloo Stark said: But that's just because Bolton knows that Stark wouldn't like this treatment of the smallfolk. Which is just Lord Rickard's personal opinion. If he was a man like Bolton, then Bolton wouldn't have had to be so secret about it. It's still not written down laws, just whatever the Lords like. They are though. It's specifically stated that Queen Alysanne abolished the lord's right to First Night. That means that it's not just what lords proclaim to be legal and illegal is what's legal or illegal: there are some laws they have to hold to. Sure, if the lords don't care it's easy to ignore them, but those laws are still there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scootaloo Stark Posted November 22, 2016 Share Posted November 22, 2016 4 minutes ago, Ser Scott Malkinson said: They are though. It's specifically stated that Queen Alysanne abolished the lord's right to First Night. That means that it's not just what lords proclaim to be legal and illegal is what's legal or illegal: there are some laws they have to hold to. Sure, if the lords don't care it's easy to ignore them, but those laws are still there. I might be nitpicking, but that's a law about Lords and their rights. Do we have an instance of a written law about the smallfolk's rights? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferocious Veldt Roarer Posted November 22, 2016 Share Posted November 22, 2016 5 hours ago, Scootaloo Stark said: They don't have rights written down in a constitution. Their rights are dependent on their Lord and basically what rights he allows them to have. And in that, they are no different from the mightiest and noblest of the land. Tyrion Lannister, son of Lord of Casterly Rock and Warden of the West, was completely at the mercy of a batshit crazy Lysa Arryn and her little brat, who "wanted to see the little man fly". 5 hours ago, Scootaloo Stark said: The rights change with Lord and time and aren't set in stone. And no one's really gonna care what a Lord does to his smallfolk. Some things, like raping and killing them, wouldn't exactly look good in the eyes of other Lords, but it still wouldn't be illegal. It would. It is. It gets a man sentenced to death. “In the name of Robert of the House Baratheon, the First of his Name, King of the Andals and the Rhoynar and the First Men, Lord of the Seven Kingdoms and Protector of the Realm, by the word of Eddard of the House Stark, his Hand, I charge you to ride to the westlands with all haste, to cross the Red Fork of the Trident under the king’s flag, and there bring the king’s justice to the false knight Gregor Clegane, and to all those who shared in his crimes. I denounce him, and attaint him, and strip him of all rank and titles, of all lands and incomes and holdings, and do sentence him to death". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukle Posted November 22, 2016 Share Posted November 22, 2016 5 minutes ago, Scootaloo Stark said: Do we have an instance of a written law about the smallfolk's rights? The closest we know of are what's in the Seven Pointed Star, which seems to be a law for all. If that's the case, it's morals would imply rights for the commoners - against murder for instance. Not that we know what any of the text says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scott Malkinson Posted November 22, 2016 Share Posted November 22, 2016 2 minutes ago, Scootaloo Stark said: I might be nitpicking, but that's a law about Lords and their rights. Do we have an instance of a written law about the smallfolk's rights? Well, if we want to be specific, I think there is no example of such a law in the books, though I think there must be some in the universe. I'd argue, however, that lords not being allowed to rape their smallfolk does give the smallfolk some rights at least, even if it is a law imposed on the nobility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukle Posted November 22, 2016 Share Posted November 22, 2016 12 minutes ago, Scootaloo Stark said: And Tywin Lannister took them away again. That's true. I hate him even more now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scootaloo Stark Posted November 22, 2016 Share Posted November 22, 2016 2 minutes ago, Yukle said: The closest we know of are what's in the Seven Pointed Star, which seems to be a law for all. If that's the case, it's morals would imply rights for the commoners - against murder for instance. Not that we know what any of the text says. Not really a law, just a religious moral compass. Even though the King is Defender of the Faith, the Faith doesn't seem to be Westeros' state religion. So it's not binding. 3 minutes ago, Ser Scott Malkinson said: Well, if we want to be specific, I think there is no example of such a law in the books, though I think there must be some in the universe. I'd argue, however, that lords not being allowed to rape their smallfolk does give the smallfolk some rights at least, even if it is a law imposed on the nobility. I'm just being super nitpicky and saying that the smallfolk likely doesn't have any rights that are written down and ultimate. A strong Lord or the King in general could do with smallfolk whatever they want: who'd say/do anything against it? If the King wants some poor guys hanged because they looked funny at him, they hang. Such things aren't common, and most nobles seem to have some sense of morality, and don't just rape and kill as they please. But they often totally could. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukle Posted November 22, 2016 Share Posted November 22, 2016 2 minutes ago, Scootaloo Stark said: Not really a law, just a religious moral compass. Even though the King is Defender of the Faith, the Faith doesn't seem to be Westeros' state religion. So it's not binding. I think it is - the Iron Throne's armies act as the new Faith Militant until Cersei reintroduces them. That's a pretty clear indication the Faith is their de facto official religion. It also seems that religious practices, such as thraldom in the Iron Islands and Guest Right in the North are considered culturally protected due to their religious elements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferocious Veldt Roarer Posted November 22, 2016 Share Posted November 22, 2016 4 minutes ago, Scootaloo Stark said: I'm just being super nitpicky and saying that the smallfolk likely doesn't have any rights that are written down and ultimate. "Written down and ultimate"? No, such laws the smallfolk do not have. Neither do knights. Nor lords. Nor septons. Nor even kings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scott Malkinson Posted November 22, 2016 Share Posted November 22, 2016 7 minutes ago, Scootaloo Stark said: I'm just being super nitpicky and saying that the smallfolk likely doesn't have any rights that are written down and ultimate. A strong Lord or the King in general could do with smallfolk whatever they want: who'd say/do anything against it? If the King wants some poor guys hanged because they looked funny at him, they hang. Such things aren't common, and most nobles seem to have some sense of morality, and don't just rape and kill as they please. But they often totally could. I agree with you that a king who'd want to, say, shoot people with a crossbow could not be stopped. I however still think there must be laws in place to protect the smallfolk from such acts: these are just ignored by said king. In other words, it would be strictly illegal for nobles to do as they please witht their smallfolk, but they could still do it because of the lack of constraints to their power. Feudalism is not anarchy, there are laws in a feudal society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scootaloo Stark Posted November 22, 2016 Share Posted November 22, 2016 Just now, Ser Scott Malkinson said: I agree with you that a king who'd want to, say, shoot people with a crossbow could not be stopped. I however still think there must laws in place to protect the smallfolk from such acts: these are just ignored by said king. In other words, it would be strictly illegal for nobles to do as they please witht their smallfolk, but they could still do it because of the lack of constraints to their power. Feudalism is not anarchy, there are laws in a feudal society. Okay, I think you're right. There must be some laws, the nobles just ignore them if they have enough power. Which makes them kinda useless, but whatever. So the smallfolk does have some - vague and weak - rights. 4 minutes ago, Ferocious Veldt Roarer said: "Written down and ultimate"? No, such laws the smallfolk do not have. Neither do knights. Nor lords. Nor septons. Nor even kings. So the only law they know is power... and the king sometimes has the most of that. Life in Westeros really sucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.