(Spoilers) ASOIAF Books Discussion (All Books Read Edition) (Spoilers)

On Royal Credibility and Rights of Vassals.
(Excerpt from an essay by somethinglikealawyer of warsandpoliticsoficeandfire )

When Rhaegar Targaryen named Lyanna Stark the Queen of Love and Beauty, there were few happy with that state of affairs. While the nobles were content to gossip and seethe on this slanderous incident, it would quickly spiral out of control when Lyanna Stark was seemingly abducted by Rhaegar Targaryen near Harrenhal. This would be the final straw for wolf-blooded Brandon, who brashly went forth to King’s Landing, demanding that Rhaegar “come out and die” for his kidnapping of Lyanna.

Neither Rhaegar nor Lyanna were present in the capital, but Aerys II was, and he had Brandon arrested for plotting the murder of the crown prince. He issued a demand for Rickard Stark to go to the capital and answer for his son’s crimes, to which Rickard agreed, and the Lord Paramount made the journey to King’s Landing to ransom his son. What happened next was infamous and spelled the end of the Targaryen dynasty. Rickard himself was charged with treason, and when Rickard demanded trial by combat, he was burned to death in a grotesque mockery of the law of Westeros, by Aerys declaring fire the champion of House Targaryen, all while his son Brandon watched, strangling himself to death in a vain attempt to free his father.

Many Targaryen apologists say that Aerys was within his rights to execute Brandon for seeking the death of the crown prince, but these people ignore critical pieces of Aerys’s conduct, that he had stated that Rickard was to come to King’s Landing to account for his son. This is not a mere courtesy, highborn prisoners charged with crimes had the right to trial, and Aerys had made it plain that Rickard was to come to King’s Landing to settle affairs, meaning that Brandon would have had his due when Rickard arrived. Rickard, acting in accordance with the law, was suddenly seized, bound, and murdered. So, whether Aerys could have had Brandon killed on royal authority is irrelevant. Once he had issued his decision, he couldn’t retract it without risking royal credibility and authority in the face of highborn rights.

By issuing a command and then using it to murder his obedient lord, Aerys II undermined all semblance of royal credibility, and in a feudal system of government, where the specifics of service due by both lords and vassals, are outlined in contracts, credibility at the top is absolutely vital. As Steven Attewell points out in his column: “if one law-abiding Lord Paramount can be executed on a whim, any of them can.” However, it goes slightly further than even the great extent that Mr. Attewell offers, for not only was Rickard murdered, but he was murdered in a fashion as to spit in the face of lordly rights with a showy “trial by combat.” This exercise mocked both the lordly rights that highborn enjoyed as a privilege due to their status, but the very gods who were supposed to sit in judgment over trials by combat and render their verdict through the swordarm of the truly just party. Aerys demonstrated that he believed highborn noble rights to be a joke, that he was the absolute authority whose dictates superseded all laws of gods and men. In doing so, he caused half of his kingdom to rise in revolt and spelled the doom of his authority.

Beacause “There’s a lot more to Robert’s Rebellion. Aerys’s and Rhaegar’s were deeply unsettling to feudalism as a whole. In feudalism, lords sacrifice autonomy and other rights to the king for protection. Rickard Stark was summoned to court, and there was seized, charged with treason, denied his due process, and executed in mockery of his lordly rights.

Eddard and Robert, the de jure Lords Paramount (though they’ve yet to swear their feudal oaths) are threatened with death despite not being involved in any crime, confirming the hypothesis that all Lords Paramounts’ lives are at the mercy of the royal whim.

In feudalism, the one big crime for a king is tyranny. Violating his own feudal oaths gives lords the right (some would even say the duty) to depose him, lest he ruin the entire government for everyone. Eddard and Robert were under the very real threat of death, Jon Arryn was commanded to forfeit his wards (a violation of the sacred guest right mandating that a host protect any guest from harm whilst under his care) to a tyrannical order, and refusal was thus, a right and proper thing. Even Hoster Tully, bound by one oath to aid the Starks and another oath to the king, found the choice made for him when Aerys violated his feudal overlordship and thus, violated it for all of his vassals (Hoster might also had reason to believe that if Brandon Stark were executed, his betrothed Catelyn might be the next suspected ‘traitor,’ and if he did not make a stand now, he could not make a stand later).

Nor could the wronged lords install Rhaegar in his place, as Rhaegar had already violated the laws by abducting a Lord Paramount’s daughter (taking a noble mistress is one thing, abducting one is quite another!) Rhaegar’s actions demonstrated that he believed himself unbound by the laws of Westeros and that he was answerable to no lord for his actions. When Rhaegar emerged from Dorne, he took up his father’s side, thus publicly stating that the Crown was not in the wrong for executing Rickard, and further proving that he believed that the Targaryens were answerable to none. Is it any coincidence that this is when Robert was acclaimed the true king of Westeros by his noble coalition? Aerys and Rhaegar sought to return the government to an absolute monarchy, where the royal whim is supreme. “

Image: The Death of Brandon and Rickard Stark by reaprycon