Do the smallfolk of Westeros have rights at all?

[Paxter Redwyne]

19 minutes ago, Scootaloo Stark said:

Life in Westeros really sucks.

Except if you are great lord. wink wink

[Scootaloo Stark]

Just now, Paxter Redwyne said:

Except if you are great lord. wink wink

Even then you have to deal with other lords, the king, wars, your family.. urgh.

If I could choose, I'd live in Braavos. It's the best place for many reasons, regardless of your social status.

[Paxter Redwyne]

1 hour ago, Scootaloo Stark said:

If I could choose, I'd live in Braavos. It's the best place for many reasons, regardless of your social status.

Unless you would get assasinated by someone, heh.

[SeanF]

The Smallfolk aren't chattel slaves, so they clearly have rights.

Being able to enforce those rights is another matter.

[Yukle]

11 minutes ago, SeanF said:

The Smallfolk aren't chattel slaves, so they clearly have rights.

Being able to enforce those rights is another matter.

Yes, the thralls of the Iron Islands are proof of this. It's a cultural issue that Westeros seems to tolerate, mostly due to their inability to completely pacify the Iron Islands.

I'm kind of unsure why they want them at all, though. They have fleets and ore reserves - but they're almost more trouble than they're worth, what with their raiding. Seriously, they should just disenfranchise all of the current lords and put mainlanders in place. It might not be perfect, but thralls are essentially serfs, and that's really a lack of most human rights.

Surely most common law forbids what the Iron Islands do... but as you say, the Iron Throne lacks the power (or will) to enforce a lot of things.

[sharkhawk]

I can see at least two instances where the small folks rights were brought to justice.  

 

1.) Jorah Mormont was to be beheaded for selling poachers to the slavers.

2.) In Game of Thrones the small folk from the riverlands went before the Kings hand to beg for justice for the ravaging of their countryside by Gregor Clegane. 

Plus the Roose Bolton example someone gave above.

So, I can see that there is some sort legal system in place, and the small folk do have rights.

[GyantSpyder]

The law in Westeros seems to be pretty Anglo-Saxon, in that there is a combination of factors determining what the "law" is at any given time:

- Local custom ("folk-right") - In certain places there is the local custom of the Andals, and in others it is the local custom of the First Men, or the Dornish (actually it's a pretty big problem that the Targaryan system treats Dornish Law as a system of folk-right similar to the customs of the Andals, when it is actually its own totally distinct formal system of written laws that often formally contradict with the broader system in which they reside.).

- Privilege - The Iron Throne can make laws and rules that override local custom in certain places, as can the various religions.

- "Peace" - we hear a fair amount about "The King's Peace" as a basis for legal authority - this refers to the maintaining the King's property and authority arrangements, and also to certain sorts of crimes the King supposedly protects everybody from. In the case of Gregor Clegane, While certainly Ned thinks of it in the sense of the folk-right of the First Men - which is that if you murder people the Stark in Winterfell is supposed to come execute you personally - I wonder if a good share of his offense in legal terms would be that he was committing his atrocities in the lands of Tully vassals, but he is a Lannister vassal, and this violates the agreements the King has with the Tullys and Lannisters as to their holdings and authority in their own lands.

It's a big undercurrent throughout the story that these systems often conflict with each other - the Privileges given out by Stannis to the wildlings infringe upon the folk-rights of the Northerners, but going against them by force rather than petition would be an offense against the King's Peace.

The petitioners for the hand of Lady Hornwood appeal to various sorts of folk-right without a clear way forward, but ultimately Bran and Luwin defer to Robb, who would use his privilege to decide the matters of marriage and inheritance, and in the meantime Ramsay Bolton violates both folk-right and Peace by seizing her lands and marrying her by force.

Guest-right is a folk-right that is not legally codified but determined by custom. So when Walder Frey participates in the Red Wedding, he is acting in cooperation with Tywin, who is presumed to have some degree of royal privilege behind his decisions, and the end result is to restore the King's Peace, but he runs very far afoul of folk-right, and so he faces various sorts of reckoning for that.

I think though I'm not sure that what we would think of as "the rights of the smallfolk" are not what we would think of as "legal rights" nowadays, but are instead split between folk-rights that are dealt with according to local customs, and privileges granted them by the King, which, in accordance with the King's Peace, exist only in the context of the authority of the lords who rule over the smallfolk and their fealty to their lords and eventually the King, not in the inherent legal rights of the smallfolk themselves in the context of the state.

TL;DR - The smallfolk don't have "rights" because there is no "state" in Westeros. What they have are customary protections and expectations based on where they live and privileges granted them by the Targaryan kings, most of which, either way, depend on their local lords in order to actually have any force.

[Lion of the West]

6 hours ago, Scootaloo Stark said:

And Tywin Lannister took them away again.

Or to give the full story; Aegon V tried to impose various reforms, he had to withdraw the vast majority of them due to reistance from the nobility, and what little did get through was revoked by Tywin.

[Baelor Butthole]

13 hours 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.

My understanding of how this went down:

(1) Roose Bolton sees Ramsay's mom and was attracted to her.

(2) Finds out that the miller married her without his permission/knowledge. (Assumingly because he didn't want Roose to claim first night...)

(3) Hangs the miller for marrying without his permission.

(4) Rapes Ramsay's mother because he is ice cold, thinks everyone is entitled to their proclivities as long as they are discreet about it, and this is some version of the first night.

(5) Ramsay is born and the miller's brother realizes that Ramsay is Roose's son and kicks his mother and him out.

(5) Gives the miller's wife/Ramsay's mother the mill in recompense for her troubles. Now that the miller's brother has been kicked out of the mill, Roose assumes he will complain to another lord and his past rape of the mother will come out. He then cuts out the miller's brother's tongue to prevent the story from spreading and covering his ass.

He wouldn't need to cut out the guy's tongue if there were no repercussions/the small folk don't have any rights. I think the justice system is complain up the hierarchy of lords so long as someone will listen. Ex. Stouts won't listen or mistreat you, complain to the Dustins --> Dustins won't listen, complain to the Starks, etc. Ultimately a peasant won't pursue it that far because they don't have the means and a lord will just shut them down before its possible. A merchant or rich person might be able to follow through with it though.

[Jaak]

We have the story of Lord Stackspear doubling the taxes on his smallfolk without permission of Tytos.

Implying that he did need a permission - it was not purely his own business as a landholder and lord.

[Winter prince]

6 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

Or to give the full story; Aegon V tried to impose various reforms, he had to withdraw the vast majority of them due to reistance from the nobility, and what little did get through was revoked by Tywin.

This^

Some Lords want the smallfollk to have no rights

but when there was a Stark in Winterfell the Kingsroad was a safe place, so I think it boils down to who governs the lands as to how much rights the smallfolk have.

I also imagine there was a reason the smallfolk went to Kingslanding and not Riverrun for answers (or maybe just for plot reasons)

[BlueNightzx]

the land have rules designed by the lords and the king and council, but not the peasants, they may approach a lord or the king to seek justice, but its entirely to the lords to grant it or not. 

[devilish]

Many people discuss Westeros as if it is present time. Today, news can travel from Sydney to New York in a matter of seconds and everyone has access to ways to spread information as fast as possible. Let’s say Scottish people are being discriminated in Russia. Someone films a Russian soldier hurting someone from Glasgow in Moscow and he sends it to the BBC and voila that would make the news.
Westeros is somehow different. It’s a continent on its own build on early medieval infrastructure which is basic at its best. That means that movement of people between regions is highly costly, dangerous (brigands etc) and therefore rare. Which make crown inspectors stick out like a sore thumb.  Communities were closely knit, loyal to the Lords that own the very land they step on and can make their life miserable and not very friendly towards strangers who might be brigands. That means that a level of omerta and xenophobia exist in these communities with people spilling the beans considered as enemies. Also Concepts like real time data is not existent and rule is based on trust that can be broken. Sure if the king demands his LP to raise the banners then they will oblige because they will be found out if they don’t. However if let’s say Robert decides that the smallfolk have the right for a 2% increase in salary and the LP + his noblemen decide not to proceed with it then probably he will never know that that law is not implemented. 

So what are the Westerosi smallfolk rights? 

a-    Well they have the right not to be enslaved. Slavery is condemned by everybody and Jorah had to flee when he tried to implement it. 
b-    Religion was often seen as a tool to keep everyone in line and keep morale up. Therefore people would have the right to practice their own religion as long as it doesn’t hinder 
productivity too much.
c-    In theory if the Local Lord broke the rules (ex Roose raped Ramsey’s mother) then the smallfolk has the right to appeal to the Warden.

d- they might have rights like opening a business etc. 

 

However that opens a can of worms because

a-    It would be difficult for a Warden to be tough to one of the most powerful Lords in the land
b-    That person risk having his entire community + his Lord seeing him as a traitor
c-    His lord literally own the lands he steps on

Not to forget that usually the Lords in question aren’t bastards and will make sure that his paramour + his bastard will be raised in a comfortable life that most commoners would only dream of having. In that case a rape might be a blessing in disguise for these poor people who owe nothing and are seen as workhorses.
Also If a local lord is keen to help them up they have the right to make an appeal directly to the king. That is exactly what happened when Gregor harassed the Riverlands.
 

[the trees have eyes]

On 22/11/2016 at 0:51 PM, SeanF said:

The Smallfolk aren't chattel slaves, so they clearly have rights.

Being able to enforce those rights is another matter.

Yup: it really is as simple as this.

Murder, robbery, rape and assault are all crimes and it is the duty of the Lords to enforce the laws or, there being no police force, to bestow justice after the event.

The reason we no longer have this system is the obvious lack of any effective oversight, the possibility for negligence or incompetence, the reality of conflicts of interest, corruption and abuse and the obvious disincentives for poor, powerless ordinary folk with no mobility to bring complaints against hereditary landowners whose land they happen to live on .

In theory it should work ok but in practice, allowing for quis custodiet ipsos cutodes, it doesn't.

Corruption or bias in the police or judiciary remains a serious problem in some countries today, notably those where politicians or organised crime are able to make the law courts and enforcement agencies work in their favour.  Having rights written down means little if you don't have the rule of law and access to a justice system that works fairly to enforce those rights.

[SeanF]

7 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

Yup: it really is as simple as this.

Murder, robbery, rape and assault are all crimes and it is the duty of the Lords to enforce the laws or, there being no police force, to bestow justice after the event.

The reason we no longer have this system is the obvious lack of any effective oversight, the possibility for negligence or incompetence, the reality of conflicts of interest, corruption and abuse and the obvious disincentives for poor, powerless ordinary folk with no mobility to bring complaints against hereditary landowners whose land they happen to live on .

In theory it should work ok but in practice, allowing for quis custodiet ipsos cutodes, it doesn't.

Corruption or bias in the police or judiciary remains a serious problem in some countries today, notably those where politicians or organised crime are able to make the law courts and enforcement agencies work in their favour.  Having rights written down means little if you don't have the rule of law and access to a justice system that works fairly to enforce those rights.

Even in highly advanced States today, the poor and powerless have difficulty gaining access to justice, and the powerful abuse their positions. Obviously, things would be worse in Westeros.  If you're one of the Smallfolk, you probably only get justice if one of the powerful decides to fight your cause.  That might be someone who has a conscience, like Ned Stark.  Or it may be a case of one lord having a grudge against the lord who has done you an injustice.   Or it may be that you are a valued servant or retainer, and your lord treats an assault on you as an affront to his own honour.