Barristan in KL - A room full of murderers

[Kaerys Snow]

Well not everyone in Westeros physically swore an allegiance to the King(whoever it is) but if the King sends for you and you kill who he sends, it's gonna be seen as treason. I'm not saying Barristan broke any oath, him being kicked out of the Kingsguard is irrelevant.

It is not, because it relieved him of his own moral obligation to obey Joffrey. What is left then is a legal mumbo-jumbo which can be interpreted in many ways - I doubt Dany considered it treason, or Stannis. But, they would have considered if treason if Barristan had not been kicked out of the KG, for then he would have broken his oath.

So yes, the dismissal from the KG is extremely important!

The "king" dismissed him from his position, but he is still bound by oaths, both of fielty, and as a knight.

There are pledges of fielty afaik, not oaths. I doubt Barristan has ever made one to Joffrey. But even if so, we are still left with the question of the ambigous interpretation of 'treason' (see above). The only thing that really binds him to Joffrey is his KG oath, because this oath is above the interpretations of what is treason, just rebellion etc. (which is why Jaime though serving the 'right cause' is universally hated). The pledge of fielty is not above these interpretations, it is subject to them.

It can actually be argued that in illegally dismissing Ser Barristan from the KG (remember, rule of law is important!) although KG are sworn to serve for life barring grave offense, that Joffrey broke whatever oaths of fealty Ser Barristan may have ever sworn to the Baratheon dynasty. This is different from a king merely dismissing a knight from his service - in the first case, the king is merely dissolving the oath that bound the knight to a particular form of service, as the knight's monarch, the king is still owed the knight's fealty as a subject although the knight no longer owes the king service as a knight. However, in breaking a long-standing tradition and social contract that KG knights serve for life, Joffrey breached a fundamental social contract - he had no right to dismiss Ser Barristan, even kings cannot entirely do as they wish with impunity - and consequently released Ser Barristan from all oaths/understandings of obedience and fealty to the Baratheons.

Very good point. In history, a liege lord in Middle Ages Germany e.g. had to adhere to a certain code of conduct and breaking it had grave consequences. A knight who had been humiliated as much as Barristan would not have accepted this. In fact the liege lord could be lucky if only two watchmen were killed...

[Ramsay B.]

According to those laws, Stannis is also a traitor. When you support a claimant you are considered traitor by every other claimant. Barristan chose to support Daenerys. Yes, if you use Joffrey's law, he is traitor, but why would you use Joffrey's law when we all know he is not the rightful king?

Yes, I agree with that. All I was saying was that he would use Joffrey's law because at the time of Barristan's actions(in King's Landing) it was at a place where Joffrey ruled.

[Mad Monkey]

There are pledges of fielty afaik, not oaths. I doubt Barristan has ever made one to Joffrey. But even if so, we are still left with the question of the ambigous interpretation of 'treason' (see above). The only thing that really binds him to Joffrey is his KG oath, because this oath is above the interpretations of what is treason, just rebellion etc. (which is why Jaime though serving the 'right cause' is universally hated). The pledge of fielty is not above these interpretations, it is subject to them.

Well, House Selmy is a house of the Stormlands, which means that it is sworn to House Baratheon of Storm's End, just as Roose Bolton was sworn to the Starks of Winterfell. So how does his oath of fealty work then? Does it go to the eldest living member of that house, Stannis Baratheon? Does it go to the actual, lawful ruler of Storm's End, Renly Baratheon? Does it go to Robert's acknowledged heir, Joffrey Baratheon? Joffrey isn't really a Baratheon though; in fact, he's not even really a Lannister, since he was never legitimized by a royal decree.

It's very complicated, and I'm not sure that it's fair to call Barristan a traitor and a murderer for having a hard time figuring it out. He only had a few moments to sort through this mess while the readers have had years; if we can't come to a consensus on it after all this time, how can he do it in a split second, when two men are trying to kill him or drag him off to be tortured?

[Nyrhex]

It can actually be argued that in illegally dismissing Ser Barristan from the KG (remember, rule of law is important!) although KG are sworn to serve for life barring grave offense, that Joffrey broke whatever oaths of fealty Ser Barristan may have ever sworn to the Baratheon dynasty. This is different from a king merely dismissing a knight from his service - in the first case, the king is merely dissolving the oath that bound the knight to a particular form of service, as the knight's monarch, the king is still owed the knight's fealty as a subject although the knight no longer owes the king service as a knight. However, in breaking a long-standing tradition and social contract that KG knights serve for life, Joffrey breached a fundamental social contract - he had no right to dismiss Ser Barristan, even kings cannot entirely do as they wish with impunity - and consequently released Ser Barristan from all oaths/understandings of obedience and fealty to the Baratheons.

This is the same reason why I do not perceive RR as treason - by executing Ned's brother and father without a trial and groundlessly demanding the deaths of Ned and Robert, Aerys broke the contract between the Targaryens and the Starks, unbinding them from any ties of loyalty.

There are pledges of fielty afaik, not oaths. I doubt Barristan has ever made one to Joffrey. But even if so, we are still left with the question of the ambigous interpretation of 'treason' (see above). The only thing that really binds him to Joffrey is his KG oath, because this oath is above the interpretations of what is treason, just rebellion etc. (which is why Jaime though serving the 'right cause' is universally hated). The pledge of fielty is not above these interpretations, it is subject to them.

Barristan is still a knight. He considered Joffrey as Robert's heir and served him as a king. After he was fired, he still considered Joffrey king, and since he is a knight, he was still bound to him by law. The knight's vow is an oath to obey his captains in battle, to his feudal lord, and to his king (see Beric knighting Gendry). Breaking tradition and firing him from the Kingsguard is removing him from an office. He is still a knight, and if Joffrey did not send those men to kill him, he broke no contract. If those men did in fact recieve orders to kill Barristan, then yes, the contract is broken.

A kingsguard is a knight who makes another vow. They don't cancel each other out (as Jaime learned, when he found them conflicting). Just as Stannis makes Davos a lord, and Hand, after Davos is alreay bound by a feudal contract to Stannis, and by his knightly vow. Notice that the oath Davos makes to Stannis when turning lord and hand has no mentioning of conditions that would break this contract, as that is already covered in the feudal contract. RR was justified because the King denied protection and justice to his subjects, as is required of him in the feudal contract.

[Ramsay B.]

Well, House Selmy is a house of the Stormlands, which means that it is sworn to House Baratheon of Storm's End, just as Roose Bolton was sworn to the Starks of Winterfell. So how does his oath of fealty work then? Does it go to the eldest living member of that house, Stannis Baratheon? Does it go to the actual, lawful ruler of Storm's End, Renly Baratheon? Does it go to Robert's acknowledged heir, Joffrey Baratheon? Joffrey isn't really a Baratheon though; in fact, he's not even really a Lannister, since he was never legitimized by a royal decree.

It's very complicated, and I'm not sure that it's fair to call Barristan a traitor and a murderer for having a hard time figuring it out. He only had a few moments to sort through this mess while the readers have had years; if we can't come to a consensus on it after all this time, how can he do it in a split second, when two men are trying to kill him or drag him off to be tortured?

Yes. I love Barristan and never viewed him as a traitor but I think the OP just pointed out that at the time and place of Barristan getting dismissed, he was seen as a traitor and murderer.

[Nyrhex]

Yes, I agree with that. All I was saying was that he would use Joffrey's law because at the time of Barristan's actions(in King's Landing) it was at a place where Joffrey ruled.

Well, House Selmy is a house of the Stormlands, which means that it is sworn to House Baratheon of Storm's End, just as Roose Bolton was sworn to the Starks of Winterfell. So how does his oath of fealty work then? Does it go to the eldest living member of that house, Stannis Baratheon? Does it go to the actual, lawful ruler of Storm's End, Renly Baratheon? Does it go to Robert's acknowledged heir, Joffrey Baratheon? Joffrey isn't really a Baratheon though; in fact, he's not even really a Lannister, since he was never legitimized by a royal decree.

I fear I disagree with both of you. Joffrey is no king just because he sits the Iron Throne. Many consider him Robert's trueborn son, and thus mistakenly assume he is the rightfull king, yet we the readers know this to be false, and so Stannis is the true king.

Barristan is not bound by oath to the Stormlans anymore. He renounced his claim to his ancestral seat, and the woman he was to marry was married to his cousin, when he took the white. Selmy should still serve Stannis, if he knew that Joffrey, Mycella and Tommen are bastards. He should serve his king as a KG, and as a knight in general. Since he has no seat, and is in service of no lord, his fielty is to the king alone, and in this respect, he is like a lord paramount. The other KG are also bound to serve him as thier LC, and so are not in the same position exactly.

It's very complicated, and I'm not sure that it's fair to call Barristan a traitor and a murderer for having a hard time figuring it out. He only had a few moments to sort through this mess while the readers have had years; if we can't come to a consensus on it after all this time, how can he do it in a split second, when two men are trying to kill him or drag him off to be tortured?

1. Barristan did have years. He served Robert for 15 years, then suddenly he thinks that Dany is the rightfull heir.

2. No one said anything about torture. "Question" was the word. It was either be questioned by Joffrey's order, or killed, by someone else's (if such an order did in fact exist).

[Ramsay B.]

Like Varys says, "Power resides where men believe it resides". From the POV of the people and guards at KL when selmy was dismissed and killed 2 soldiers, it was treason. From most readers POV it's not treason or wrong. From Stannis or any other "King" it wasn't treason.

[Lala]

Very good point. In history, a liege lord in Middle Ages Germany e.g. had to adhere to a certain code of conduct and breaking it had grave consequences. A knight who had been humiliated as much as Barristan would not have accepted this. In fact the liege lord could be lucky if only two watchmen were killed...

Exactly :)

This is why the Magna Carta exists - it is one of the best examples of a documented social contract and, conveniently, is also the product of a feudal society. The idea is that lords and knights swear oaths to a king with the understanding that the king in turn is bound by certain obligations of conduct and honor. If the king, in this case Joffrey, breaks these bonds by failing to uphold his obligations, then the knight/lord is no longer bound by this contract and consequently is no longer bound by any oaths of loyalty/fealty.

[Mad Monkey]

1. Barristan did have years. He served Robert for 15 years, then suddenly he thinks that Dany is the rightfull heir.

2. No one said anything about torture. "Question" was the word. It was either be questioned by Joffrey's order, or killed, by someone else's (if such an order did in fact exist).

I was talking about the Joffrey thing, not the Dany thing. I'm saying that there's no way he could have quickly untangled all of the fealty issues regarding Joffrey that fast.

As far as torture -- come on. It's Joffrey. How would Barristan know that it would be a polite inquiry? I'm not talking about the actual facts of the situation but only what Barristan could have reasonably assumed. He remembers the rash comment he made about Stannis taking Joffrey's throne; when two goldcloaks come charging after him, would he have expected to remain physically unharmed if he submitted? That doesn't seem all that likely, even though we as readers know that Joffrey did not order Barristan's death.

[Frozentree]

2. No one said anything about torture. "Question" was the word. It was either be questioned by Joffrey's order, or killed, by someone else's (if such an order did in fact exist).

Though I do not know what "question" means in that case, I don't think they would literally just ask him questions.

"Are you traitor?"

"No."

"OK, you can go"

Either torture or a farce of trial followed by black cells or execution, neither of which sounds good

[Kaerys Snow]

After he was fired, he still considered Joffrey king,

Based on what evidence? I think he did not - not after being humiliated.

The knight's vow is an oath to obey his captains in battle, to his feudal lord, and to his king (see Beric knighting Gendry).

A vow to a dead king, if you remember whom Beric claims to serve. It is not Joffrey. Obviously there is no automatism transferring the knight's vow to a new king, at least not for Beric. And if Beric came to that conclusion, why not Barristan...

Breaking tradition and firing him from the Kingsguard is removing him from an office. He is still a knight, and if Joffrey did not send those men to kill him, he broke no contract. If those men did in fact recieve orders to kill Barristan, then yes, the contract is broken.

That is just opinion, which is fine. But who is to say Barristan held that opinion too? And who is to judge that opinion of his right or wrong? You keep evading the very fact that the word "treason" is subject to each and everyone's interpretation. Sure does Joffrey call it treason, but Dany does not, and I doubt Stannis will. It may be treason to Stannis that Barristan did not go to him, which once again demonstrates the subjectivity of treason.

The only thing standing above such subjectivity and interpretation is the KG oath. Everyone would have agreed it to be treason had Barristan violated that one. He did not. He was absolved from it. He had no inner, moral obligation any longer to serve him. What is left then is the subjectivity and interpretation of what constitutes "treason". You may side with Joffrey's interpretation. I don't.

1. Barristan did have years. He served Robert for 15 years, then suddenly he thinks that Dany is the rightfull heir.

1) Suddenly after he was humiliated. Quelle Surprise. ;)

2) you seem to contradict yourself. I agree that Barristan did no longer consider Joffrey as the rightful king, you however said just minutes ago:

After he was fired, he still considered Joffrey king,

[Prince of Dragonstone]

As others have stated, Varys wanted Barristan to live so he could go to Essos and join Dany's cause. He lead him towards his partner Illyrio who then led him to Dany. Same situation with Tyrion in ADwD and Jorah betore AGoT takes place.

[Nyrhex]

Though I do not know what "question" means in that case, I don't think they would literally just ask him questions.

"Are you traitor?"

"No."

"OK, you can go"

Either torture or a farce of trial followed by black cells or execution, neither of which sounds good

Stannis orders the Karhold men questioned. And him and Horpe make the distinction between "sweetly" and "harshly", as does Dany with the merchant and his daughters. "harshly" required the giver of the order's direct approval in both cases. A questioning of what he meant is more plausible then torturing the "truth" out of him, even if we are talking about Joffrey.

Based on what evidence? I think he did not - not after being humiliated.

A vow to a dead king, if you remember whom Beric claims to serve. It is not Joffrey. Obviously there is no automatism transferring the knight's vow to a new king, at least not for Beric. And if Beric came to that conclusion, why not Barristan...

That is just opinion, which is fine. But who is to say Barristan held that opinion too? And who is to judge that opinion of his right or wrong? You keep evading the very fact that the word "treason" is subject to each and everyone's interpretation. Sure does Joffrey call it treason, but Dany does not, and I doubt Stannis will. It may be treason to Stannis that Barristan did not go to him, which once again demonstrates the subjectivity of treason.

The only thing standing above such subjectivity and interpretation is the KG oath. Everyone would have agreed it to be treason had Barristan violated that one. He did not. He was absolved from it. He had no inner, moral obligation any longer to serve him. What is left then is the subjectivity and interpretation of what constitutes "treason". You may side with Joffrey's interpretation. I don't.

1) Suddenly after he was humiliated. Quelle Surprise. ;)

2) you seem to contradict yourself. I agree that Barristan did no longer consider Joffrey as the rightful king, you however said just minutes ago:

A. From Barristan's own words, that only after the men attacked him, did he stop thinking of Joffrey as his king.

B. A vow to Robert when he was alive, and from the fact that he guarded Joffrey, a vow to him as well. There is no reason to guard him if he does not have to.

C. I don't side with Joffrey's interpretation. I deem Barristan a traitor for killing those two guards. If they attacked first, then no,r he is no traitor, as he did not know that Stannis is the king, he had a right to choose who to serve.

1. No surprise. Not legal if the guards did not try to murder him either.

2. Where is the contradiction? He served Robert for 15 years. He served Joffrey for 15 minutes until he was sacked. He only figured out he should be serving Dany after "a 100 council meetings" where he heard of her whereabouts, and after two king, and a possible murder attempt.

[Sansa_Stark]

Great theory.

Cersei obviously realized that Barristan would have smelled something fishy once Stannis' letters came.

If Barristan joined Stannis and backed up his claim, it would be trouble for Cersei.

[RumHam]

There's one problem with this theory. If Cersei wanted to kill Barristan, she would have just killed him. It would have removed the difficulty of how to dismiss a Kingsguard for the first time since the order's inception. It would have been much easier to just poison him and claim he died in his sleep. Publicly dismissing him and fucking with the order of things makes no sense if you're just gonna kill him in a few days.

[Sansa_Stark]

There's one problem with this theory. If Cersei wanted to kill Barristan, she would have just killed him. It would have removed the difficulty of how to dismiss a Kingsguard for the first time since the order's inception. It would have been much easier to just poison him and claim he died in his sleep. Publicly dismissing him and fucking with the order of things makes no sense if you're just gonna kill him in a few days.

Cersei is stupid.

No problem.

[RumHam]

Cersei is stupid.

No problem.

Tyrion Lannister sighed. His sister was not without a certain low cunning, but her pride blinded her.

I think she'd be capable of working this one out.

[Beorn Snow]

It´s one of the biggest blunders that Cersei made and it´s kind of clever to put it already in AGOT. From the way events unfold in AGOT it seems that Cersei is a good player in the game of thrones, but firing Barristan from the KG is the same kind of stupidity that is all over AFFC. Barristan Selmy is well recognized brand-name in the knightly world of Westeros and thus valuable to any contender for the IT.

[Winter's Knight]

There's one problem with this theory. If Cersei wanted to kill Barristan, she would have just killed him. It would have removed the difficulty of how to dismiss a Kingsguard for the first time since the order's inception. It would have been much easier to just poison him and claim he died in his sleep. Publicly dismissing him and fucking with the order of things makes no sense if you're just gonna kill him in a few days.

This. Barry's, what more than sixty years old? Better to ease him away quietly in his sleep.

[Ahura Mazda]

Joffrey is the King of Westeros. He wanted Barristan arrested and Selmy killed his arrestors so that is treason(and murder) by the laws of Westeros. We all know Joffrey is a tyrant but by definition I think that Barristan was a traitor.

If you are innocent and you know that you're gonna be arrested to be executed for no more reason than a child's whim.. would you call it betrayal resist being arrested and executed?

He is an outlaw, not a traitor. Imho, clearly.