Are the Great Councils intended to be legislative committees that are supposed to inform the decisions of future issues or are they more like Kingsmoot - more of a popularity contest that applies only to the current issue at hand?
Here's the statement by Archmaester Gyldayn that bugs me to no end:
In the eyes of many, the Great Council of 101 AC thereby established an iron precedent on matters of succession: regardless of seniority, the Iron Throne of Westeros could not pass to a woman, nor through a woman to her male descendents.
The first problem here is that qualifier "In the eyes of many". If Jaehaerys had called the Great Council with the intention of it being a legislative assembly weighing in on the matter of succession law, why wouldn't that already be clear to everyone? "In the eyes of many" implies that whether or not the Council set a binding precedent is a matter of opinion or perspective. People don't go around saying "In the eyes of many, Andal law says sons before daughters" - because what Andal law says is a matter of fact, not interpretation.
The second problem is gender wasn't really raised as an issue during the Great Council of 101. All claims were regarded as valid and it was deemed that Viserys' claim, which had the advantage of proximity was better than Laenor Velaryon's claim, which relied on primogeniture. The implication being that Laenor was a close second and if Viserys hadn't existed or been a woman or been a great-grandson instead of a grandson, Laenor would've won out.
The question of whether the throne can or cannot pass to a woman or through a woman was never raised - it was simply determined that proximity is better than primogeniture.
These two things taken together seem to imply that when the council was called, it was never intended to set a binding precedent. Instead, it was about solving the issue at hand. And then the sexist society of Westeros retconned the Council's decision as legally binding when they thought it was in their interest.
I tried looking at other Great Councils to see if they made judgments that could be regarded as binding. The second set of Great Councils was about electing regents for Aegon III. These regents served their terms and were dismissed later - but this didn't set the binding precedent that any regent had to be chosen by a Great Council. Queens and Hands could still serve as regents when required without needing to call one.
The third Great Council weighed in on succession again - but once again, here they did not discuss a matter of law or succession, but they tried to figure out who was the most suitable candidate for a king. They chose Aegon, for lack of any better candidate, but whatever precedent it might've set was never invoked.
Based on this, my view would be that Great Councils are called to deal with current crises but that is where their authority stops. That using the decision made in one to justify future actions would be a self-serving retcon.
On the other hand, it would make sense for a king like Jaehaerys to think ahead and settle the matter such that not only is the current crisis averted, but any future similar crises are dealt with as well. It would make sense for him to call the council to settle the matter once and for all so that future generations don't have to keep calling one everytime a problem comes up.
Also, in a society without a written constitution or a legal code, law is often a matter of perspective. In cases where there isn't an explicit statement by the king or by whatever religious code they follow, if enough people consider something as the law, then it is to be regarded as such.
If we take this view, then yes, you can justify the Great Council setting a binding precedent.
I'm not sure which way to lean here. First I thought that option 1 seemed logical and later I leaned towards option 2 - but now I'm conflicted once again.
Is there any information or perspective I've missing here that would resolve it?
Submitted March 28, 2018 at 07:48AM by genkaus https://ift.tt/2pMcFdP
No comments:
Post a Comment