I would argue the entire contract is invalid on its own merit. There is no legal clarification on the capacity for when the Kingsguard oath contradicts itself leaving it up to interpretation for each individual Kinsguard member. On top of this, the Kingsguard vows do not strip a member of their knighthood, so their knightly vows hold true. However, as seen in the case of Ser Duncan the Tall v. Aerion Brightflame, upheld by the will of the gods in a Trial of Seven, the protection of the royal family is secondary to the defense of the innocent and defenseless. Jaime was acting within the confines of his knightly vows. Also, I can confirm Alf’s visitation to several restaurants in Monroe led to the closure of several businesses, a clear example of economic fraud and intimidation.
Yep, the institution of knighthood comes from the Faith of the Seven, and thus the gods, and it is clear that the will of the Seven exceeds that of the king in Westeros.
@@MeeraReads he's been mentioning his law school stuff about as long, and it always reminded me of this! Natural fit. Still... would be even cooler if you get a chance to do one at a con eventually like originally planned... can't do a medieval style court proceeding without a jeering crowd influencing events!
I told them everything in the book was fair game as far as evidence and I’m kind of surprised they didn’t take advantage of that more. We’ll just have to do a round 2
George, i request PLEASE Take as long as you want, atleast until the "trail" (crying session) of Euron Greyjoy Seriously though, i never i thought i'd see this type of content in any fandom lol
@@MeeraReadsGod I would love to see just like a breakdown of Iromborn stuff, since it all also counts as theorising for the winds of winter, because we know that's how Asha wants to use Theon to try and beat Eurom an ahhhhhjhjh Thank you so much for this content I never knew but always needed!!!
When Brianne swears her sword to Catelyn, Catelyn swears not to ask her to do something that would dishonor Brienne, is the implication here that Catelyn is a more just then the average Noble? Or is it a breach of contract to ask something that would bring dishonor to the sworn party?
Westerosi law is unclear, but it’s described as dishonorable to put someone in that position. Under American contract law, a contract is unenforceable if it requires a party to commit a crime (like, I can’t hire you to steal stuff for me and then expect the court to enforce that agreement)
I have no knowledge of the law and yet feel that my opinion (which is mostly guesswork) here matters: the plaintiffs seem very focused on the legitimacy of the contract specifically when it was entered into, during a time where the king had a slightly higher standing. To me it seems that the contract's legitimacy is tied directly to that of the king, so if at any time the king was deemed illegitimate, the contract would follow. Now Aerys may have never been given the opportunity to be officially deposed by the rebelling party, but his legitimacy WAS in question long before the time of the offence in question. I would say that by winning the rebellion, the lords' claims of illegitimacy are upheld basically by force. From my perspective this sort of delegitimizing would work retroactively as well, absolving Jamie of wrongdoing. This is supported in the fact that some members of aerys's kingsguard, who had sworn lifelong commitments to the crown, were able to be let go or exiled after Robert took the throne, with only a select few renewing their vows under King Robert. If their contracts can be deemed illegitimate at that point, then certainly Jamie's transgression can be pardoned in much the same way. Aerys didn't magically become an illegitimate king when Robert took the throne. If the rebelling lords' claim that king aerys was illegitimate is upheld by the small council and the high lords allowing robert to take the throne, then that claim is upheld throughout the entire period that it was being made, not just after the fact. Therefore Jamie had no obligation to protect aerys as he was no longer king, whether that had been made official or otherwise. From the moment the lannisters entered king landing it was obvious that the rebellion was lost. At this point it seems reasonable for Jamie, understanding that Aerys's rule is basically no longer in effect, was no longer under this now illegitimate contract, and was acting in the defence of the honor of the yet uncrowned next king of westeros, by saving his capital. I am fully aware that this is stupid, and probably not all too well explained. But it would have been a fun argument to see played out.
This is actually a few great arguments sort of mixed together. You could definitely argue that Jaime was upholding his oath if he recognized Robert as the rightful king at that time. As far as duress, one way to win when you’re accused of breaching contract is to argue that the contract wasn’t valid to begin with. If Jaime signed under duress because he was afraid of the king’s madness, that could render the contract void. There were a lot of arguments being mashed together, if we do another one I will try to keep everyone a little more organized
I think the defenses only hope would be harping on the conflict between Jamie's oath as a KNIGHT to protect the innocent vs his oath as a kingsguard to protect the king. Why should the latter take precedence over the former?
Why did Jamie being too young to enter into a contract fail on its face? As you point out, age of majority is 16, but on Storm of Swords 11 (Jaime 2) he says he was 15, and even points out he was still a boy.
Because the attorneys asserted that he was 16 when he joined the Kings guard. At summary judgment, all facts agreed on by both sides are taken as true and I didn’t fact check them. If Jaime was in fact 15, the argument obviously does not fail on its face
Although I find this all entertaining, didn't Robert Baratheon pardon Jaime? It seems that King Robert found Jaime's actions reasonable, and the King's decisions are final, therefore,Jaime is not responsible.
That would have been a good argument that Jaime’s breach was reasonable but it doesn’t automatically absolve him in the civil case-pardon requires admitting that he committed the crime
If the hand don’t fit we must acquit
That’s quite clever 😂
Happy to see everyones faces :D
I would argue the entire contract is invalid on its own merit. There is no legal clarification on the capacity for when the Kingsguard oath contradicts itself leaving it up to interpretation for each individual Kinsguard member.
On top of this, the Kingsguard vows do not strip a member of their knighthood, so their knightly vows hold true. However, as seen in the case of Ser Duncan the Tall v. Aerion Brightflame, upheld by the will of the gods in a Trial of Seven, the protection of the royal family is secondary to the defense of the innocent and defenseless. Jaime was acting within the confines of his knightly vows.
Also, I can confirm Alf’s visitation to several restaurants in Monroe led to the closure of several businesses, a clear example of economic fraud and intimidation.
Yep, the institution of knighthood comes from the Faith of the Seven, and thus the gods, and it is clear that the will of the Seven exceeds that of the king in Westeros.
Wake up Bran, new Meera just dropped
Don’t worry, he already knew 👁️👁️👁️🐦⬛
Banger Alert!
I request a trial of seven
Oh there shall be combat XD
@@randominternetguyoffical let's actually do this at the next con.
Zac in his purple suit *chef’s kiss*
👨🍳 💋
Zac I think I wore the same suit when I was 6 and madly in love with my piano teacher. May it give you the same luck it gave me!
Zac was lookin crisp af tbh
I was just wondering yesterday when yall were going to get around to this one! Very fun so far and the format was worth the wait.
Right? I’ve only been talking about it since like April 😂
But I’m glad we waited, since Quinn was a great addition
@@MeeraReads he's been mentioning his law school stuff about as long, and it always reminded me of this! Natural fit.
Still... would be even cooler if you get a chance to do one at a con eventually like originally planned... can't do a medieval style court proceeding without a jeering crowd influencing events!
Jfc... watching myself assert with a straight face that Aryes really might have turned into a dragon...
😂
One of the highlights of the video, and a weirdly sound legal argument in a world with working blood magic.
@@michaeltalksaboutstuffI like to think I have a way with silly words 😎
I told them everything in the book was fair game as far as evidence and I’m kind of surprised they didn’t take advantage of that more. We’ll just have to do a round 2
@@MeeraReads I hope to hear the words "Your honor we have no way to know exactly how many peasants need to be burned to birth a dragon, but..."
“Power resides where men believe it resides. It's a trick. great stream!
George, i request PLEASE
Take as long as you want, atleast until the "trail" (crying session) of Euron Greyjoy
Seriously though, i never i thought i'd see this type of content in any fandom lol
Should we charge Euron for election tampering?
@@MeeraReadsGod I would love to see just like a breakdown of Iromborn stuff, since it all also counts as theorising for the winds of winter, because we know that's how Asha wants to use Theon to try and beat Eurom an ahhhhhjhjh
Thank you so much for this content I never knew but always needed!!!
@@MeeraReads Election tampering via magical horn.
When Brianne swears her sword to Catelyn, Catelyn swears not to ask her to do something that would dishonor Brienne, is the implication here that Catelyn is a more just then the average Noble? Or is it a breach of contract to ask something that would bring dishonor to the sworn party?
Westerosi law is unclear, but it’s described as dishonorable to put someone in that position. Under American contract law, a contract is unenforceable if it requires a party to commit a crime (like, I can’t hire you to steal stuff for me and then expect the court to enforce that agreement)
I have no knowledge of the law and yet feel that my opinion (which is mostly guesswork) here matters:
the plaintiffs seem very focused on the legitimacy of the contract specifically when it was entered into, during a time where the king had a slightly higher standing. To me it seems that the contract's legitimacy is tied directly to that of the king, so if at any time the king was deemed illegitimate, the contract would follow. Now Aerys may have never been given the opportunity to be officially deposed by the rebelling party, but his legitimacy WAS in question long before the time of the offence in question. I would say that by winning the rebellion, the lords' claims of illegitimacy are upheld basically by force. From my perspective this sort of delegitimizing would work retroactively as well, absolving Jamie of wrongdoing. This is supported in the fact that some members of aerys's kingsguard, who had sworn lifelong commitments to the crown, were able to be let go or exiled after Robert took the throne, with only a select few renewing their vows under King Robert. If their contracts can be deemed illegitimate at that point, then certainly Jamie's transgression can be pardoned in much the same way. Aerys didn't magically become an illegitimate king when Robert took the throne. If the rebelling lords' claim that king aerys was illegitimate is upheld by the small council and the high lords allowing robert to take the throne, then that claim is upheld throughout the entire period that it was being made, not just after the fact. Therefore Jamie had no obligation to protect aerys as he was no longer king, whether that had been made official or otherwise. From the moment the lannisters entered king landing it was obvious that the rebellion was lost. At this point it seems reasonable for Jamie, understanding that Aerys's rule is basically no longer in effect, was no longer under this now illegitimate contract, and was acting in the defence of the honor of the yet uncrowned next king of westeros, by saving his capital. I am fully aware that this is stupid, and probably not all too well explained. But it would have been a fun argument to see played out.
This is actually a few great arguments sort of mixed together. You could definitely argue that Jaime was upholding his oath if he recognized Robert as the rightful king at that time.
As far as duress, one way to win when you’re accused of breaching contract is to argue that the contract wasn’t valid to begin with. If Jaime signed under duress because he was afraid of the king’s madness, that could render the contract void.
There were a lot of arguments being mashed together, if we do another one I will try to keep everyone a little more organized
So Im not supposed to use this as legal advice?... Well, I need to make a few phone calls...
lol
Perfect way to start the day!
I think the defenses only hope would be harping on the conflict between Jamie's oath as a KNIGHT to protect the innocent vs his oath as a kingsguard to protect the king. Why should the latter take precedence over the former?
I love this So much! What a fun and thought provoking idea.
So glad you like it!
Disappointed no one played the role of the Simple Country Lawyer. That could have been a very powerful ploy.
So fun I love that show
Why did Jamie being too young to enter into a contract fail on its face? As you point out, age of majority is 16, but on Storm of Swords 11 (Jaime 2) he says he was 15, and even points out he was still a boy.
Because the attorneys asserted that he was 16 when he joined the Kings guard. At summary judgment, all facts agreed on by both sides are taken as true and I didn’t fact check them.
If Jaime was in fact 15, the argument obviously does not fail on its face
@@MeeraReads fair
@@MeeraReadsJaime was definitely 15, born in 266, sworn in in 281 (Harrenhal). Still watching but can’t wait to continue!
Although I find this all entertaining, didn't Robert Baratheon pardon Jaime? It seems that King Robert found Jaime's actions reasonable, and the King's decisions are final, therefore,Jaime is not responsible.
That would have been a good argument that Jaime’s breach was reasonable but it doesn’t automatically absolve him in the civil case-pardon requires admitting that he committed the crime
That was fun! Thanks for making law interesting
You're an attorney??? Are you aware of the Learned Hands podcast? I think you'd enjoy and you'd be a great guest!
Learned Hands is definitely a top tier ASOIAF podcast
Yes! I’ve messaged with them a bit, very nice folks
Favorite video ever
This was *the most* fun. Also if Zac and Tom need a fairly competent and reasonably equipped swordsman for a champion, hmu
This is truly the best of the internet. ❤😂 Amazing.
Great stuff! Maybe you can hold a Super Smash Brothers event for the trial by combat 😂❤
I love that!
This is fantastic!
Thank you! So glad you like it!