Game of Thrones' Laws Make No Sense

Hello everyone! Today I'm discussing the various laws found within #asongoficeandfire and Game of Thrones.

Be sure to subscribe if you enjoyed this video! What do you think? Is there anything I missed? What do you think of #houseofthedragon so far? More #asoiaf content is on the way!

Thank you all for watching! I'll be back with more theories next week! Character art in this video is by TheMico!

00:00 Quinn the Law Student
00:59 Master of Laws
01:57 Lord Lyonel Strong
03:04 The Ironrod
03:59 Broader Legal Systems
05:09 The King's Peace
05:46 King Maegor's Laws
06:50 Cersei Is a Political and Legal Genius
07:24 Queen Alysanne's Laws
07:44 Disputes and Trials
09:06 Trial By Combat
10:16 Abolishing Tradition
11:34 Additional Combat Rules
12:05 Inheritance Law
13:07 Conclusions

[gliduspyke]

ok, yeah maybe they make no sense but COUNTERPOINT. Imagine being a highborn lad, stealing a loaf of bread or something an then ask for a Trial of Seven and fight 7 knights with your mates. Those were the days

[ikki]

Something that was always funny to me is how Ned brought 6 of his mates on his way to the tower of joy as if he was accounting for the possibility whoever was left at the tower of joy might demand a Trial of Seven

Like Ned didnt just came prepared, he was steps ahead

[promisemabu]

The abolishment of Trail by Combat by the faith is essential to their goal of reestablishing the faith militant when you look at its history. The last they did trial by combat it was against Maegor who, after winning dismantled the faith militant

[Fire_Summoner]

The job of Master of Laws is to sit there in the council and get overruled as the king makes the laws. It seems that enforcing laws falls to the Wardens of the land so it's more redundant unless the person in that position is politically savvy and actually uses it.

[minnumseerrund]

What about the Night's Watch? It effectively acts as the ol' "go to prison or join the army" deal while also playing a role in succession law

[WillowGardener]

So I think the laws of Westeros make a bit more sense when you consider that the Lord of a given area is essentially the end-all and be-all of the law. The Lord resolves all legal disputes based on whatever their personal preference is, and so there isn't as much need for a complex legal system--except in the areas that relate to a Lord holding onto their power. Those being succession laws and trial by combat.

[justsomedude]

Stannis: Firm but fair, strong sense of justice and penance, will hold anyone accountable for their actions.

Robert: Makes Renly master of laws.

[hydromancer]

GRRM: "Tolkien doesn’t ask the question: What was Aragorn’s tax policy?"
Also GRRM:

[SRosenberg]

While the conflict in the main series is loosely base don the Wars of the Roses, I'd argue that Westeros is a lot more analogous to England in the 12th and 13th centuries rather than the 15th and 16th. So the lack of codified laws makes sense thematically and historiclaly, especially when you consider the fact that while Magna Carta was signed by King John in 1215 (under duress from his rebellious Barons) it was invalidated by the Pope months later and basically ignored for 50 years, until the Second Barons Revolt in 1264. And after Longshanks crushed that revolt, Magna Carta was only loosely applied based on the whims of individual Kings, until the Great Revolution in the 1600s, which really cemented the transformation of England from a feudal to a Constitutional Monarchy.

[Kalenz]

In an interview Martin specifically said there is no Magna Carta in Westeros. It's an absolute monarchy.

[ticwugl]

Although documents like the Magna Carta did not exist a lot of the characters actions are as if they did, especially in the main story.

Events around Robert's Rebellion are a great example. The things Aerys II did would be grounds for deposition in any medieval society. This is because kings, least of all medieval kings, and lords couldn't really do whatever or kill whoever without justification, especially high lords. If the justification is considered too absurd then the nobles and kingdom won't accept it. Kings were also extremely restricted by customs and precedents of their time. The rebels saw it the same way. Not even the king could kill and call for the heads of multiple people (again, least of all high lords) for no reason. If he could do it to them he could do it to anyone else. He was a threat to every man, woman, and child in the kingdom; his plans for half a million loyal subjects proved that.

This turned most of the country against him and his dynasty and why they accepted Robert Baratheon. There was a social expectation that the king can't do that. Ned STARK rebelled against his king that his ancestors swore too. Why? Aerys II broke faith first. Kings have to take coronation oaths and Aerys II obviously violated his. "I charge you to be just." Yes, subjects usually have a greater affinity for the current dynasty and the anointed king but what mattered the most to them by far, especially when you get down to the gentry, was how the country was being run and that's where the Targaryens serious fell short. That's what put the people so decisively behind Robert Baratheon, a promise of justice.

Of course, when you depose a king you are technically still supposed to put his heirs on the throne. You certainly can't butcher royal children for no reason either. That's why Ned was so mad at the death of the Targaryen kids. They couldn't invite Viserys back after that.

There are social, political, and economic reasons behind every usurpation. They don't happen solely because someone has a competing claim, although that's usually one reason. There were several times where King of Westeros deposed or killed for misconduct and those are big indications of what the some of the universal rules were.

We even see some hints about the laws in HOTD. What Daemon did to the criminals of King's Landing would've been considered misconduct even by medieval standards. Otto complains about the summary executions (executions without trial) and the fact that he even does that proves he blatantly skipped some standard trial or judgement system. Tyrion made it clear to Bronn that he couldn't just kill the thieves in KL. In both Westeros and England wartime rules functioned differently though. Even in US history.

Also, I'd like to point out that there were governing bodies separate from the royal government such as the Great Council which did make crucial decisions without the king's presence. They've raised kings, perhaps in violation of certain rules. The fate of the Rhaenys Viserys situation rested on the Great Council. Jaehaerys I would've needed their decision even if it was one he didn't like. It was a way to give his heir something separate from his own naming to support their claim, another powerful legal institution to back them so they would have an unquestionable right.

[astrinymris]

I think the craziness of Westerosi law is kind of the point: Medieval law was arbitrary and ill-defined. The only reason the Magna Carta got passed when it did was because King John was in a weak enough position that some noblemen were able to force it on him. And even then, it only protected the rights of the nobility from the king, not the commoners from their own lords.

Now, Dorne seems to have a detailed written system of law, as Doran included a law book in Arianne's prison suite. But that's Dorne, which is culturally distinct from the other six realms.

[kevingary]

I love how he built a wourld where most is just assumed. I think its because he build such detailed characters and conflict that you just add the law as it fits in the world.

[thor]

I understand the logic behind saying these various noble lords should probably be spending more time addressing disputes between their subordinates, but I think I have an answer as to why - they let their stewards handle that, only taking a more active hand in certain issues. It's similar to how many noble houses have an executioner, or how the Hand of the King holds court in place of the king.

I feel like this makes sense, given that almost every POV character we have that you'd expect to deal with this kind of thing are generally fairly high ranking, so they'd probably only feel obligated to step in when the dispute is between two lords. By contrast, a minor lord, or even a landed knight might have a more direct relationship with his subjects.

Additionally, there's a more simple reason for why that's not included - it's kinda boring. While I'm sure you would enjoy that kind of thing, I doubt there's much of a market for "Fantasy John Grisham, " and I imagine it'd be hard to pull that off.

[ILikedGooglePlus]

No one in the comments here seems to understand GRRM's Aragaorn Tax Policy quote.

He wasn't saying stories should be more dry and boring, he was saying that life is more complex than "Good men are good kings so things are good."

He wasn't calling for entire economic and legal systems to be fully detailed and thought through, but just saying he likes when stories examine the complexities and grey areas of life

[carlrood]

In The Once and Future King (and the musical Camelot), it's ironically the abolishment of trial by combat and establishment of jury trial that messes the whole thing up. So long as Lancelot could beat anyone in combat, he and Guinevere were safe from accusations of infidelity/treason.

[paulcourtemanche]

I AM NOT CRAZY!! I AM NOT CRAZY!!! The Magna Carta was signed in 1215, one before the address of the Mesa Verde bank.

[syraphian]

Honestly the fact that you were still putting out good content pretty consistently while being a 1L is fucking bananas, you really deserve props for your work ethic. I hope your finals went well!

[The_Malcontented]

Lyonel Strong, Septon Barth, and future-king-Viserys-II are THE examples of who a King's Hand should be

[zblackcapricorn]

This is the most first year law school student thing you could do