The Time Traveling Tree Posted September 21, 2014 Share Posted September 21, 2014 How do the laws work with rebellion exactly? If we follow strictly to the laws of westeros, does a Targ belong on the throne? Or does Stannis since the baratheons overthrew them have every single last right to the IT? And how exactly was Robert placed there? Just curious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bright Blue Eyes Posted September 21, 2014 Share Posted September 21, 2014 Winner takes it all. Well, as soon as every Lord of Westeros has sworn fealty to him. Everybody swore fealty to Robert, deal done, Stannis is his heir, Targs can gtfo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanless Mace Posted September 21, 2014 Share Posted September 21, 2014 Whomever has the throne makes the rules...until someone kicks their butt and takes the throne. I really think that where rebellion is concerned, there's not much more to it. Lots of people have claims, but to the victor goes the spoils. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibzit Posted September 21, 2014 Share Posted September 21, 2014 but if the targs win and take the IT back and all lords swear fealty to them, than stannis can gtfo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knight Of Winter Posted September 21, 2014 Share Posted September 21, 2014 What laws? Westeros doesn't have any - at least not in a sense we define it today. Whoever gets the Lords to swear fealty to him is the King. That's the ultimate "law". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olenna'sCheese Posted September 21, 2014 Share Posted September 21, 2014 "By way/law/right of conquest" is a phrase I've heard challengers to the Throne use. Not a law as such but more "We beat you so you no longer have power here" kinda thing. I suppose the idea is, if a rebel claims themselves independent from the throne, or claims to be the King, it's up to the holder of the Throne to defeat them. If they can't beat them, with words, in battle, with treachery, or even just by killing the leader, they lose and the rebel wins independence or the crown or whatever they wanted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedShirt47 Posted September 21, 2014 Share Posted September 21, 2014 What laws? Westeros doesn't have any - at least not in a sense we define it today. Whoever gets the Lords to swear fealty to him is the King. That's the ultimate "law". Pretty much this. What rules there are mean very little as whoever sits the throne can change them or ignore them. The only ones who can enforce the rules are the Lords and their armies. Whom so ever the (strongest group of) Lords decide to follow is King. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bright Blue Eyes Posted September 21, 2014 Share Posted September 21, 2014 but if the targs win and take the IT back and all lords swear fealty to them, than stannis can gtfo Spot on. "By way/law/right of conquest" is a phrase I've heard challengers to the Throne use. Not a law as such but more "We beat you so you no longer have power here" kinda thing. I suppose the idea is, if a rebel claims themselves independent from the throne, or claims to be the King, it's up to the holder of the Throne to defeat them. If they can't beat them, with words, in battle, with treachery, or even just by killing the leader, they lose and the rebel wins independence or the crown or whatever they wanted. It's basically just a convention to end the war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buried Treasure Posted September 21, 2014 Share Posted September 21, 2014 I don't think anybody doubts that, if its peacetime and the king hasn't been abusing his power, if a lord just decides 'I'm gonna call my banners, beat the king and make myself king' then that lord is a traitor. It is the duty of every other lord to support the king and oppose the rebel lord. Might makes Right is then the exact same thing as Right makes Might because the king has the right and would usually be victorous because most of the Kingdom answered his banners for that reason. Put that way, the laws of Westeros seem clear cut.The situation is much more murky when the Lord has been provoked in some way by the king. Westeros is not an absolute monarchy and feudal obligations don't just go one way. What is hard to define is how much provocation justifies a lord defying his king - every individual would answer differently and it is dependant on circumstances. If a king sets a lord high taxes it would probably be unjustified to take up arms and overthrow that king, but would not sending men to support the king's campaign to clear the Mountains of the Moon be a proportionate response? What about not sending men to support the king against a different rebel lord?Any lord who has a family member killed by the king probably feels he is no longer obligated to serve that king, or even that he is honour bound to oppose that king. Robb said it best when he anticipated Harrion's probable reaction to him executing Karstark. And a lord who cannot live within the kings peace has the choice of either going into exile - which would be giving up their birthright even when they have not committed a crime - or fighting in what they would call a righteous rebellion. Of course the king will never accept that being overthrown is lawful, but a king who acknowledged provoking the Lord might accept that some defiance from the Lord is justified. So if Robb had retaken North he probably would not have wanted to kill all Karstarks - whom he knew were guilty of no crime. Perhaps he would have tried to appease then so they would not have fought against him but they could sit defiantly in Karhold not paying taxes or answering his banners, in the understanding that a generation later the Karstarks would resume fealty.The other thing about any kind of 'righteous' rebellion is that only the personally offended lord(s) and perhaps their vassals have any justification in rebelling. The rest of the non-provoked lords still owe their might to the king. I'd say only when the war is lost, and the only alternatives are death or exile (neither of which they deserve having committed no wrongs) should they be bending the knee to anybody else a king. But at that point their obligation to the old kings line ends and their obligation to the new king begins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bright Blue Eyes Posted September 21, 2014 Share Posted September 21, 2014 Very nice summary. Except for the last paragraph. Lords are not only allowed to flock together to defend the rights of one of their own, they are basically obligated to. Because that's the only way the King's power can ever be checked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salafi Stannis Posted September 21, 2014 Share Posted September 21, 2014 If you hold the throne then it is rightfully yours (Targs), until somebody takes it from you by right of conquest (Baratheons), then it is rightfully yours, and your heir's after you. Some call Robert a usurper, and that Stannis is not the rightful king because his claim comes froma usurper, and that Dany is the rightful Queen because she got her claim from Aegon the Conqueror. However he took the Seven Kingdoms by right of conquest, so it's kind of a double standard to say right of conquest applies to the Targaryens but not the Baratheons. But if you rebel against the throne, until you win then you are just another rebel. For example, if I were alive during Robert's Rebellion, I would have supported the Targs, as they would be the rightful rulers, but as soon as Robert Baratheon took the IT and became king, I would have supported him, as he is then the rightful king. I don't believe however that this applies to the Lannisters, who took the throne through incest, treachery and deceit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buried Treasure Posted September 21, 2014 Share Posted September 21, 2014 Very nice summary. Except for the last paragraph. Lords are not only allowed to flock together to defend the rights of one of their own, they are basically obligated to. Because that's the only way the King's power can ever be checked.Well, thanks.I think that that way you suggest might be a better system but I don't think that is what is considered honourable/ lawful in Westeros. The sense I get is that nobody faults Dorne or the Reach for supporting Aerospace doing the rebellion because that is what was expected of them. Though, I do suspect that what you say about checking the kings power is what the Southron ambitions and marriage alliances was all about. There are plenty of theories that the original intention of Harrenhal was to plan to rebel or overthrow Aerys or similar but I think it might have been to put the Lords in a position to force the throne to accept a Magna Carta like settlement to limit the king without denying his authority to rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedShirt47 Posted September 21, 2014 Share Posted September 21, 2014 If the King decides on a whim to take out one of his Lords then the other Lords would get worried that this King can take out any of them. He is not playing the game properly. Thus the Lords could well band together to remove this dangerous King. Of course the King could come up with a story of how this Lord was a traitor and if it was sold well enough to the Lords then they would back the King. So the King saying "Might is Right, I'm the King, take out that Lord". Probably wouldn't work. But a King could probably remove any lord he wanted to but he would have to do so politically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faydra Posted September 21, 2014 Share Posted September 21, 2014 Well, it's a rebellion. Other than being forbidden, there are no laws to it... unless the rebels win and it suddenly becomes equitable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferocious Veldt Roarer Posted September 21, 2014 Share Posted September 21, 2014 How do the laws work with rebellion exactly? If we follow strictly to the laws of westeros, does a Targ belong on the throne? Or does Stannis since the baratheons overthrew them have every single last right to the IT? And how exactly was Robert placed there? Ask a fan (or a hater) of one of the claimants, and you'll get a simple straightforward answer. My favorite character is the rightful king/queen, everyone else are usurpers (or their dogs) and, to quote a fellow poster, can GTFO. It's obvious and indisputable for Daenerys Targaryen and Stannis Baratheon in-universe (they only agree on the name of the rightful monarch, not on the principle), and fanboys among the readers follow their lead. Basically, pick a side and call yours the rightful one, that's what we do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wolves Posted September 21, 2014 Share Posted September 21, 2014 There's that one law that it's okay for me and mine to rebel but ~gasp~ how dare you do exactly what I did, example: Robert and Ned rebelling but puts down the Greyjoy rebellion. Or Ned and trying to have Cersei exiled because she upsurped the upsurped' dynasty. Or Stannis getting upset bscause others are committing treason when he committed treason against the Targaryens. Renly had it right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pod The Impaler Posted September 21, 2014 Share Posted September 21, 2014 There's no such thing as "rightful" - power is what decides it. What is a new lord or monarch going to do - arrest themselves for usurpation ? Those that lose get punished, declared traitors, whatever.That is what absolute power allows you to do - if you control the seat of power, the law is whatever you decree. If anyone feels that unjust, their choice is to either just swallow that injustice and obey, or make war and destroy you. There is no middle ground of due process and rule of law, because obedience to such would mean your power is limited. Relative equals are bound by law to each other, not those who answer to nobody at all. Of course, there is still the one limit that even the absolute ruler must obey - the reality that you cannot hope to fight everyone all the time and win. That's why even they have to control their behavior, because it works both ways - annoy or endanger or disappoint enough people and they can and will destroy you. Whether you have principles you stick hard by or are pragmatic to the point of standing for nothing, you still have to maintain legitimacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bright Blue Eyes Posted September 21, 2014 Share Posted September 21, 2014 Westeros isn't absolutism though. It's feudalism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FatalTragedy Posted September 21, 2014 Share Posted September 21, 2014 The targs created the iron throne, so as far as I'm concerned, as long as any targs are alive and in Westeros, they are the rightful rulers. So if Aegon is legit, he is the rightful king. If not, Stannis is the rightful king until Dany shows up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tywin Manderly Posted September 21, 2014 Share Posted September 21, 2014 The targs created the iron throne, so as far as I'm concerned, as long as any targs are alive and in Westeros, they are the rightful rulers. So if Aegon is legit, he is the rightful king. If not, Stannis is the rightful king until Dany shows up. Aegon the Conquerer is the biggest usurper from Westerosi history for he usurped multiple kings. That said, with the exception of a king who is acclaimed/elected/designated by the population, any first king of a new royal line is an usurper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.