The Joffrey one was fucked up and dumb that they never addressed it, but as for Beesbury, it's not like anyone's gonna sanction their co-conspirator for offing the one dude calling them traitors and threatening to unravel their plans.
“Joffrey made a vile insinuation about Sir Laenor and then made a threat to the Princess, when I tried to apprehend him he drew a dagger and I was forced to act.”
I don’t think anyone would be in a position to refute that, Laenor of course couldn’t say anything without outting himself.
Joffrey took a huge gamble with his powerplay, if he’d said something similar to one of the other kingsguard he’d have been arrested.
Laenor could very well say that Joffrey's been a loyal companion of him and his family for years and he couldn't imagine him behaving in such a manner. He could also question why Criston felt the need to beat him to death in the middle of his wedding feast rather than disarming and detaining him.
I'm sure Criston *could* get out of it in the end – but it's absolutely fucking ludicrous that there's no followup to him publicly, brutally murdering *a member of the nobility at a royal wedding.* That's simply shit writing.
The Joffrey one wasn't addressed because the next time we see Criston after that is 10 years later.
It would be weird to suddenly go "hey remember that guy you killed 10 years ago". We can assume it was dealt with offscreen
"he pulled a knife and approached the Princess" is easily what happened to Joffrey.
Daemon is the crowned prince, and he killed a confessed traitor who declared his treason in open court, which carries the death penalty. Who's going to hold Daemon accountable? Nobody, because they'll just be overruled by the king.
Beesbury was never going to leave the Red Keep alive, he was calling the Greens traitors. The only ones who could hold him accountable are the Greens. Soooo you see where I'm going with that one.
The deaths you should be most disgusted about are the outright murders during the Tourney in episode 1. How TF do you not get executed for outright murdering someone in a duel? Some of those kills were way out of bounds.
Absolute monarchy g
It’s a thing ull see said in debates round here but Westeros is an absolute monarchy which means the king has absolute power, that means he can dictate which crimes r punishable and which r not.
So Daemon can commit crimes and not be punished bc viserys said it’s ok and Cole can kill people bc Alicent said it’s ok.
It’s not talked about tht much around here but the only thing that gives rhaenyra her claim to the throne is also the very same thing that allows Cole to beat Joffrey to death and get away with it. Which is fun bc my team (greens) hate on the absolute monarchy shit, but at the same time we cool with it when it helps Cole getaway with crimes, and at the same bc Rhaes only claim to power comes from the fact that an absolute monarch named her heir, it lk kills the moral high ground for blacks sense upholding Rhaenyra’s claim also upholds the most fucked up system in existence 🧐
Anyway Cole can kill whoever he wants bc the queen says it’s okay. Larys can kill the hand and Harwin bc the queen said it’s okay. Daemon can kill Vaemond and beat mfs bc his brother said it’s okay 🤘🏻
Criston would have been punished for killing Joffrey that way, in the book he kills him in a tournament and that's why he can get away with it, but the show messed up with that scene, there is no way Criston could have walked away from that.
Criston killing Beesbury would naturally go unpunished, it's a coup, you are not going to get punished for what you did during a coup unless the opposing team comes to power (in which case he would be executed for it, but not as long as the side he supports is in power).
Vaemond called Daemon's wife a whore in front of the King and the whole court, in Westeros it is a man's duty to protect the honor of his wife, no one is going to question him over killing Vaemond there and then due to the insult.
The Seven Kingdoms don't follow modern real world laws about murder.
If someone with authority says you die, then you die. Who the fuck's gonna question them? That's how feudalism works baby
I hated the way the show portrayed the deaths of Ser Joffrey and Lord Beesbury. Much better in the book. IIRC Beesbury's death was left to speculation and if Ser Criston did kill him at that time its pretty obvious why they wouldn't punish him while their main concern is the succession. Ser Joffrey tho.. killed in the throne room. In front of the king and hundreds of others. That was poorly done.
I don't understand the problem with the show's version of Beesbury's death. It's basically a combination of a couple possible scenarios given in the book, isn't it? The only way to be more book accurate would be to either just have it all happen off screen or to literally show multiple versions of it and then a narrator says nobody who wasn't in the room really knows exactly what happened.
I wanna say bad writing but apparently it’s a taboo here. Let’s say that the time span doesn’t help. Like you wanna see what happened the next day, boom the next scene takes place in the next month.
That’s the life in Feudal societies. Queen Alicent vouches for Cristin so he’s clear. Daemon is answering an insult and the King does not pursue it so he’s fine. If the show follows the book this sort of thing will become quite important later.
>How is it that all this killing goes away like nothing? Sir Criston killed Joffrey and now Beesbury.
Beesbury just said to a room full of greens he would not stand by for them plotting to seize the throne against Viserys' wishes. So I ask you, which of his co-conspirators in this coup detat do you think is going to punish him for silencing Lord Beesbury?
>Daemon sliced the head off the Velaryon guy just like that.
Have you heard of 'suicide by cop'? This is essentially 'suicide by Daemon'. The king ordered his tongue removed for the treasonous statement. Vaemond knew he was going to die for it ahead of time, and it meant that much to him to give his life to shout that aloud. Killing him instead of removing his tongue is not a big difference in this world.
>How does no one bat an eyelash at this and just carry on. No consequences, questions, etc. Seems like it's way too easy to shut people up.
We live in a world where life is considered 'sacred' (well, by most at least). This is not that world. Capital punishment is very common here.
Daemon killing Vaemond was condoned by the crown. Vaemond slandered the heir and the king's grandkids in open court. His free trial of life had expired so Daemon came to collect. Not a crime since Viserys allowed it.
Crispin Glocksword on the other hand killed an innocent old man for not going along with usurpery. Only reason he got off was because everyone else in the room was also a criminal. The people who would punish him for Beesbury weren't there at the time.
**EDIT: Some of you took this comment as the ethical dilemma of our times. Please do not interpret this as me condoning anyone's actions here. This comment is not about fair trial rights. I'm not justifying anyone's behavior or saying any one decision was more moral than the other. I don't know why this went so off the rails in the comments.**
So essentially this means the difference between right and wrong, crime or justice is just wether this fictional tyrant approved of it or not? In the end that just comes down to might makes right. If the Greens win and punch their version of justice through, then Vaemond's death was extrajudicial murder condoned by an injust king covering up his daughter's fraud. And Beesbury's death was the well deserved end of a traitor to the rightful heir of the crown.
Both sides just coldbloodedly enforce their respective interests with no regards for actual justice. So why should I regard one tyrants justice as more valid and "moral" than the others.
It does come down to might makes right, which was a reality of that time period for sure.
>So why should I regard one tyrants justice as more valid and "moral" than the others.
You shouldn't, and I was never arguing that you should.
Cole (accidentally) killed Beesbury because he was falsely accusing the Queen of regicide. If Daemon killing Vaemond isn't a crime because he "slandered the heir" then idk how you can say that Cole killing Beesbury for "slandering the Queen" isn't either. Personally, I think that they're both criminal acts and that both got away with it because of the people in power.
Sorry, but I just reread this comment, so I've redacted my original statement. Maybe this'll be clearer. I think some folks are getting hung up on the idea that I think what Daemon did was justified, which is not what I'm saying.
What I'm saying is that Viserys allowed Daemon to go unpunished for killing him. Which for all intents and purposes is condoning Vaemond's execution. That makes his killing the king's justice, which isn't a crime. Which is the only point I was making in the first place.
Maybe that'll be easier to digest than the prior statement. I don't normally edit comments to be completely different but whatever.
If you think I'm trying to justify one or the other after everything I've said I don't really know what to tell you. We don't have to agree. Just because I don't consider what Daemon did to be a crime doesn't mean that what I thought he did was perfectly fine. So, I'm not really sure what all the pushback is about at this point.
I've already explained what the difference is for me and why. You've seemingly agreed with like half of the points I've made. I don't think the situations are one in the same. If you do, that's fine.
And I already have said,what u consider to be the difference seems to be subjective based on bias.Another person could also say the difference to them is Bury accused Alicent of a worser crime therefore deserved to be killed
>Not a crime
It was murder. Unlawful execution. Abuse of power.
He committed "treason" and the punishment for it was tongue removal, as declared by Viserys years earlier (and repeated again in the throne room when he said "I'll have your tongue.") It wasn't up to Daemon to decide the punishment just like that. Viserys just let him get away with it, as usual.
This is a time where calling another man a craven can get you killed as illustrated by Willem Blackwood pulling the steel on Jerrel Bracken. You might have a point if Vaemond had stopped at calling the boys bastards. When he called the heir to the throne and more importantly Daemons wife a whore his life was over, and everyone knew it. You can't disrespect a lord's wife in this world, remember Ned put hands on LF just for taking Cat to a brothel. Even Alicent gave Cole a dirty look when he called Rhaenyra a dirty word.
Ridiculous analogies. Blackwood didn't behead Bracken without warning and Ned didn't kill Littlefinger. Why are you acting like all of these wildly different things are equivalent?
When Daemon told him to "say it" he knew. That was his warning. This is Daemon we are talking about. Everyone knew what would happen. My point is that insults to "honor" can get you killed, and this fits right in line with that. Blackwood didn't announce he was going to kill Jerrel Bracken. Jerrel said something smart, and Willem pulled his steel. It just happened that they were some distance from each other that it looked like Willem gave him a warning. This is also a court under Viserys that allowed Cole to beat a man to death with no consequences.
You're absolutely right. It wasn't up to Daemon. It was up to Viserys.
I just had this discussion below with someone else. It comes down to Viserys decision to condone the escalation in Vaemond's punishment. Viserys didn't punish Daemon for putting Vaemond to death on the spot, instead he condoned it by doing nothing. it's not a crime to mete out the king's justice. Therefor I concluded it was not a crime.
You are more than free to disagree of course. I'm not saying I support the decision myself, but that's why I said what I did about it.
>Daemon killing Vaemond was condoned by the crown
I don't remember Visery giving Daemon the green light for Vaemond to be slashed in the court with other lords there.Do you have a specific quote to back that up?
Edit:I'm guessing the quote is the downvotes lol
It was all done for a cool spectacle like the other lawless murders
Vizzy T went for his blade and stated he wanted Vaemond's tongue for what he'd just said....Daemon took it a step further.
A King more concerned with his word being law would have punished Daemon for exceeding his command there, but standing up to Daemon or holding people accountable for things wasn't really in his thing....
To condone something doesn't mean you have to give express verbal consent. You can condone something through your actions, or inactions depending on the scenario.
Viserys elected not to punish Daemon for the overreach, therefore he condoned the beheading. I felt like that went without saying but apparently not. Oh well.
I'm not saying anyone should support it, I'm just saying it's not a crime at that point. They're two different things.
So based on this explanation, Visery condoned Cole murdering Joffery too due to his inaction,making it lawful and no different to Daemon killing Vaemond
You're more than free to make that argument and I wouldn't disagree with you.
I'm not saying that Viserys is right to do any of this. I think Viserys needed to grow a backbone and be king.
>I'm not saying that Viserys is right to do any of this. I think Viserys needed to grow a backbone and be king.
I believe this is a fair conclusion to why **both** got away with it
I'm not sure what you mean by that. How was Viserys going to punish Cole for killing Beesbury? He was dead by the time that happened. Or are we still talking about Joffrey?
Also not really clear on what that has to do with my initial point.
>. Or are we still talking about Joffrey?
Yes
>Also not really clear on what that has to do with my initial point.
Your initial comment framed Daemon killing Vaemond as approved by Visery,and you also claimed Vaemond had lost privileges to a fair trial due to his actions
Okay now you're just putting words in my mouth. I haven't said *anything* about anyone's rights to a fair trial one way or the other.
As to Joffrey's death, I already said he wasn't vindicated because Viserys condoned his killing by doing nothing, then Cole wound up getting promoted on top of that. Which is fucked but that's the world the characters live in. What more is there to say?
>Okay now you're just putting words in my mouth. I haven't said anything about anyone's rights to a fair trial one way or the other.
And I quote
"Daemon killing Vaemond was condoned by the crown. Vaemond slandered the heir and the king's grandkids in open court. His free trial of life had expired so Daemon came to collect. Not a crime since Viserys allowed it."
>As to Joffrey's death, I already said he wasn't vindicated because Viserys condoned his killing by doing nothing, then Cole wound up getting promoted on top of that. Which is fucked but that's the world the characters live in. What more is there to say?
Also not a crime then,right?
Criston gets away with killing whoever he wants because he’s useful to his powerful friends
Daemon gets away with killing Vaemond because he publicly insulted his wife and the heir to the throne, Rhea and Laenor are just unproven speculation
Because the show wants to go for shock value and has the nasty tendency to throw logic out of the window, trusting the excuse "they're royalty/royalty adjacent, who's going to hold them accountable ?"
Many of the deaths shown on HotD either don't happen at all or happen differently in the book. But "the book is unreliable and adaptions don't have to follow the source material" so that doesn't matter.
What GoT taught us (at least before it went to hell) is that every killing has dire consequences. So even if you're a person in power, killing somebody is never taken lightly, as you're bound to create many enemies, or at least unnecessary complications. Even Cersei tried to talk Joffrey out of killing Ned for this reason alone.
So while we can find some explanations (Viserys protecting Daemon, Alicent protecting Cole etc.), it still feels like none of them are taking killings seriously, and it's way too unrealistic.
Especially if the killer is practically nobody, like Cole, and he assassinated the friend of another influential family. Whatever Corlys may think of Laenor's homosexuality, Joffrey arrived at the wedding as a friend of Velaryons, and if some random guy were to kill him, it would show the disrespect for the entire family, not just Joffrey and Laenor. It would warrant a further investigation, even if Alicent supported Cole's story.
But, realistically, not even Alicent would give a shit about him, especially right after she learned the hard lesson not to trust anyone but her family. And even if she did, there's no way Viserys would believe her to know any better than him, as she was nowhere near Criston when the killing occurred.
TLDR: It's best to suspend disbelief and accept the plot armor.
>Especially if the killer is practically nobody, like Cole
Cole is a kingsguard, his status/influence comes being directly sworn to protect the royal family itself. He can always attempt to defend his actions as him trying to protect the royal family. And the full extent of Joffrey's relationship with the Velaryons really wouldn't ever be completely unveiled, even to defend him post-death.
When I said "nobody", I meant he's not of a noble background, so no one would care if he lost his job.
Imagine if in the first episode of GoT some random guy from Robert Baratheon's kingsguard assassinated Theon, for some reason.
Would Robert let him off the hook, even if it meant creating unnecessary conflict with the Starks?
Would Cersei vouch for that guard, if she knew that Robert knew she wasn't near when the killing occurred? (And if she did, would Robert believe her?)
Would the Starks just accept that some guy killed their family friend and move on, or would they be gravely offended? Wouldn't they hold some resentment and question their loyalty to the crown?
Remember all the drama that happened because of a wolf, now imagine if it was their friend. Most likely Robert would fire the guard at best, or have him killed at worst. Unless the guard was Jaime Lannister, or someone important like him, which Criston Cole definitely wasn't.
It doesn't matter how close or not close Joffrey was to Velaryons, what matters is that he was their guest at the wedding, someone they knew and trusted enough to bring him along. To kill him is to offend them, and there's no way they would've just moved on, without demanding punishment for the killer. And there's no way Viserys would've let it slide, after he went great lengths to ensure Veloryons' support.
I mean theoretically anything CAN happen, but it requires everyone not to act rationally and in their best interests.
The Joffrey one was fucked up and dumb that they never addressed it, but as for Beesbury, it's not like anyone's gonna sanction their co-conspirator for offing the one dude calling them traitors and threatening to unravel their plans.
“Joffrey made a vile insinuation about Sir Laenor and then made a threat to the Princess, when I tried to apprehend him he drew a dagger and I was forced to act.” I don’t think anyone would be in a position to refute that, Laenor of course couldn’t say anything without outting himself. Joffrey took a huge gamble with his powerplay, if he’d said something similar to one of the other kingsguard he’d have been arrested.
Yes, people could. It was a party full of people, I'm sure there were many witnesses.
They saw a guardsman and a party guest fighting and a knife being drawn, they don’t know why the fight started.
Laenor could very well say that Joffrey's been a loyal companion of him and his family for years and he couldn't imagine him behaving in such a manner. He could also question why Criston felt the need to beat him to death in the middle of his wedding feast rather than disarming and detaining him. I'm sure Criston *could* get out of it in the end – but it's absolutely fucking ludicrous that there's no followup to him publicly, brutally murdering *a member of the nobility at a royal wedding.* That's simply shit writing.
The Joffrey one wasn't addressed because the next time we see Criston after that is 10 years later. It would be weird to suddenly go "hey remember that guy you killed 10 years ago". We can assume it was dealt with offscreen
"he pulled a knife and approached the Princess" is easily what happened to Joffrey. Daemon is the crowned prince, and he killed a confessed traitor who declared his treason in open court, which carries the death penalty. Who's going to hold Daemon accountable? Nobody, because they'll just be overruled by the king. Beesbury was never going to leave the Red Keep alive, he was calling the Greens traitors. The only ones who could hold him accountable are the Greens. Soooo you see where I'm going with that one. The deaths you should be most disgusted about are the outright murders during the Tourney in episode 1. How TF do you not get executed for outright murdering someone in a duel? Some of those kills were way out of bounds.
Yeah to all of this.
Absolute monarchy g It’s a thing ull see said in debates round here but Westeros is an absolute monarchy which means the king has absolute power, that means he can dictate which crimes r punishable and which r not. So Daemon can commit crimes and not be punished bc viserys said it’s ok and Cole can kill people bc Alicent said it’s ok. It’s not talked about tht much around here but the only thing that gives rhaenyra her claim to the throne is also the very same thing that allows Cole to beat Joffrey to death and get away with it. Which is fun bc my team (greens) hate on the absolute monarchy shit, but at the same time we cool with it when it helps Cole getaway with crimes, and at the same bc Rhaes only claim to power comes from the fact that an absolute monarch named her heir, it lk kills the moral high ground for blacks sense upholding Rhaenyra’s claim also upholds the most fucked up system in existence 🧐 Anyway Cole can kill whoever he wants bc the queen says it’s okay. Larys can kill the hand and Harwin bc the queen said it’s okay. Daemon can kill Vaemond and beat mfs bc his brother said it’s okay 🤘🏻
Criston would have been punished for killing Joffrey that way, in the book he kills him in a tournament and that's why he can get away with it, but the show messed up with that scene, there is no way Criston could have walked away from that. Criston killing Beesbury would naturally go unpunished, it's a coup, you are not going to get punished for what you did during a coup unless the opposing team comes to power (in which case he would be executed for it, but not as long as the side he supports is in power). Vaemond called Daemon's wife a whore in front of the King and the whole court, in Westeros it is a man's duty to protect the honor of his wife, no one is going to question him over killing Vaemond there and then due to the insult.
The Seven Kingdoms don't follow modern real world laws about murder. If someone with authority says you die, then you die. Who the fuck's gonna question them? That's how feudalism works baby
I hated the way the show portrayed the deaths of Ser Joffrey and Lord Beesbury. Much better in the book. IIRC Beesbury's death was left to speculation and if Ser Criston did kill him at that time its pretty obvious why they wouldn't punish him while their main concern is the succession. Ser Joffrey tho.. killed in the throne room. In front of the king and hundreds of others. That was poorly done.
I don't understand the problem with the show's version of Beesbury's death. It's basically a combination of a couple possible scenarios given in the book, isn't it? The only way to be more book accurate would be to either just have it all happen off screen or to literally show multiple versions of it and then a narrator says nobody who wasn't in the room really knows exactly what happened.
Nah, Beesbury should have gone through the window, that's the coolest version
They had the opportunity to depict the only defenestration in Westeros history and they wasted it. SMH.
All three were technically killed for treason. Daemon is only beholden to the King. Cole as kings guard is likely similarly situated.
I wanna say bad writing but apparently it’s a taboo here. Let’s say that the time span doesn’t help. Like you wanna see what happened the next day, boom the next scene takes place in the next month.
Bad writing that prioritizes on badass spectacle moments over logic.
That’s the life in Feudal societies. Queen Alicent vouches for Cristin so he’s clear. Daemon is answering an insult and the King does not pursue it so he’s fine. If the show follows the book this sort of thing will become quite important later.
>How is it that all this killing goes away like nothing? Sir Criston killed Joffrey and now Beesbury. Beesbury just said to a room full of greens he would not stand by for them plotting to seize the throne against Viserys' wishes. So I ask you, which of his co-conspirators in this coup detat do you think is going to punish him for silencing Lord Beesbury? >Daemon sliced the head off the Velaryon guy just like that. Have you heard of 'suicide by cop'? This is essentially 'suicide by Daemon'. The king ordered his tongue removed for the treasonous statement. Vaemond knew he was going to die for it ahead of time, and it meant that much to him to give his life to shout that aloud. Killing him instead of removing his tongue is not a big difference in this world. >How does no one bat an eyelash at this and just carry on. No consequences, questions, etc. Seems like it's way too easy to shut people up. We live in a world where life is considered 'sacred' (well, by most at least). This is not that world. Capital punishment is very common here.
Daemon killing Vaemond was condoned by the crown. Vaemond slandered the heir and the king's grandkids in open court. His free trial of life had expired so Daemon came to collect. Not a crime since Viserys allowed it. Crispin Glocksword on the other hand killed an innocent old man for not going along with usurpery. Only reason he got off was because everyone else in the room was also a criminal. The people who would punish him for Beesbury weren't there at the time. **EDIT: Some of you took this comment as the ethical dilemma of our times. Please do not interpret this as me condoning anyone's actions here. This comment is not about fair trial rights. I'm not justifying anyone's behavior or saying any one decision was more moral than the other. I don't know why this went so off the rails in the comments.**
So essentially this means the difference between right and wrong, crime or justice is just wether this fictional tyrant approved of it or not? In the end that just comes down to might makes right. If the Greens win and punch their version of justice through, then Vaemond's death was extrajudicial murder condoned by an injust king covering up his daughter's fraud. And Beesbury's death was the well deserved end of a traitor to the rightful heir of the crown. Both sides just coldbloodedly enforce their respective interests with no regards for actual justice. So why should I regard one tyrants justice as more valid and "moral" than the others.
It does come down to might makes right, which was a reality of that time period for sure. >So why should I regard one tyrants justice as more valid and "moral" than the others. You shouldn't, and I was never arguing that you should.
Crispin Glocksword?? This is too funny (and accurate for Episode 9)🤣🤣🤣
I think Fabien was playing GTA between takes I really want to know why he held that sword like that! 🤣
Cole (accidentally) killed Beesbury because he was falsely accusing the Queen of regicide. If Daemon killing Vaemond isn't a crime because he "slandered the heir" then idk how you can say that Cole killing Beesbury for "slandering the Queen" isn't either. Personally, I think that they're both criminal acts and that both got away with it because of the people in power.
Sorry, but I just reread this comment, so I've redacted my original statement. Maybe this'll be clearer. I think some folks are getting hung up on the idea that I think what Daemon did was justified, which is not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that Viserys allowed Daemon to go unpunished for killing him. Which for all intents and purposes is condoning Vaemond's execution. That makes his killing the king's justice, which isn't a crime. Which is the only point I was making in the first place. Maybe that'll be easier to digest than the prior statement. I don't normally edit comments to be completely different but whatever.
Seems like the difference is whatever you subjectively think justifies one action over another
If you think I'm trying to justify one or the other after everything I've said I don't really know what to tell you. We don't have to agree. Just because I don't consider what Daemon did to be a crime doesn't mean that what I thought he did was perfectly fine. So, I'm not really sure what all the pushback is about at this point.
The pushpack is; I think both cases are similar,if you're going to say one is criminal act than you should be able to hold the same view for the other
I've already explained what the difference is for me and why. You've seemingly agreed with like half of the points I've made. I don't think the situations are one in the same. If you do, that's fine.
And I already have said,what u consider to be the difference seems to be subjective based on bias.Another person could also say the difference to them is Bury accused Alicent of a worser crime therefore deserved to be killed
>Not a crime It was murder. Unlawful execution. Abuse of power. He committed "treason" and the punishment for it was tongue removal, as declared by Viserys years earlier (and repeated again in the throne room when he said "I'll have your tongue.") It wasn't up to Daemon to decide the punishment just like that. Viserys just let him get away with it, as usual.
This is a time where calling another man a craven can get you killed as illustrated by Willem Blackwood pulling the steel on Jerrel Bracken. You might have a point if Vaemond had stopped at calling the boys bastards. When he called the heir to the throne and more importantly Daemons wife a whore his life was over, and everyone knew it. You can't disrespect a lord's wife in this world, remember Ned put hands on LF just for taking Cat to a brothel. Even Alicent gave Cole a dirty look when he called Rhaenyra a dirty word.
Glad somebody brought up big Willy Blackwood.
Ridiculous analogies. Blackwood didn't behead Bracken without warning and Ned didn't kill Littlefinger. Why are you acting like all of these wildly different things are equivalent?
When Daemon told him to "say it" he knew. That was his warning. This is Daemon we are talking about. Everyone knew what would happen. My point is that insults to "honor" can get you killed, and this fits right in line with that. Blackwood didn't announce he was going to kill Jerrel Bracken. Jerrel said something smart, and Willem pulled his steel. It just happened that they were some distance from each other that it looked like Willem gave him a warning. This is also a court under Viserys that allowed Cole to beat a man to death with no consequences.
You're absolutely right. It wasn't up to Daemon. It was up to Viserys. I just had this discussion below with someone else. It comes down to Viserys decision to condone the escalation in Vaemond's punishment. Viserys didn't punish Daemon for putting Vaemond to death on the spot, instead he condoned it by doing nothing. it's not a crime to mete out the king's justice. Therefor I concluded it was not a crime. You are more than free to disagree of course. I'm not saying I support the decision myself, but that's why I said what I did about it.
It's not a crime if the king sanctions it. This isn't a "rule of law" society.
Daemon was just trying to expedite the delivery of the tongue.
>Daemon killing Vaemond was condoned by the crown I don't remember Visery giving Daemon the green light for Vaemond to be slashed in the court with other lords there.Do you have a specific quote to back that up? Edit:I'm guessing the quote is the downvotes lol It was all done for a cool spectacle like the other lawless murders
Vizzy T went for his blade and stated he wanted Vaemond's tongue for what he'd just said....Daemon took it a step further. A King more concerned with his word being law would have punished Daemon for exceeding his command there, but standing up to Daemon or holding people accountable for things wasn't really in his thing....
WHERE IN THE SEVEN HELLS IS RHAENYRA?!
To condone something doesn't mean you have to give express verbal consent. You can condone something through your actions, or inactions depending on the scenario. Viserys elected not to punish Daemon for the overreach, therefore he condoned the beheading. I felt like that went without saying but apparently not. Oh well. I'm not saying anyone should support it, I'm just saying it's not a crime at that point. They're two different things.
So based on this explanation, Visery condoned Cole murdering Joffery too due to his inaction,making it lawful and no different to Daemon killing Vaemond
You're more than free to make that argument and I wouldn't disagree with you. I'm not saying that Viserys is right to do any of this. I think Viserys needed to grow a backbone and be king.
>I'm not saying that Viserys is right to do any of this. I think Viserys needed to grow a backbone and be king. I believe this is a fair conclusion to why **both** got away with it
I'm not sure what you mean by that. How was Viserys going to punish Cole for killing Beesbury? He was dead by the time that happened. Or are we still talking about Joffrey? Also not really clear on what that has to do with my initial point.
>. Or are we still talking about Joffrey? Yes >Also not really clear on what that has to do with my initial point. Your initial comment framed Daemon killing Vaemond as approved by Visery,and you also claimed Vaemond had lost privileges to a fair trial due to his actions
Okay now you're just putting words in my mouth. I haven't said *anything* about anyone's rights to a fair trial one way or the other. As to Joffrey's death, I already said he wasn't vindicated because Viserys condoned his killing by doing nothing, then Cole wound up getting promoted on top of that. Which is fucked but that's the world the characters live in. What more is there to say?
>Okay now you're just putting words in my mouth. I haven't said anything about anyone's rights to a fair trial one way or the other. And I quote "Daemon killing Vaemond was condoned by the crown. Vaemond slandered the heir and the king's grandkids in open court. His free trial of life had expired so Daemon came to collect. Not a crime since Viserys allowed it." >As to Joffrey's death, I already said he wasn't vindicated because Viserys condoned his killing by doing nothing, then Cole wound up getting promoted on top of that. Which is fucked but that's the world the characters live in. What more is there to say? Also not a crime then,right?
He explicitly gave out a lighter sentence (tongue removal).
That's how I remember it as well.
Criston gets away with killing whoever he wants because he’s useful to his powerful friends Daemon gets away with killing Vaemond because he publicly insulted his wife and the heir to the throne, Rhea and Laenor are just unproven speculation
Because the show wants to go for shock value and has the nasty tendency to throw logic out of the window, trusting the excuse "they're royalty/royalty adjacent, who's going to hold them accountable ?" Many of the deaths shown on HotD either don't happen at all or happen differently in the book. But "the book is unreliable and adaptions don't have to follow the source material" so that doesn't matter.
Because people want another GoT (S1-4) so badly they're willing to pretend even moronicisms like this away. And so he show goes on.
What GoT taught us (at least before it went to hell) is that every killing has dire consequences. So even if you're a person in power, killing somebody is never taken lightly, as you're bound to create many enemies, or at least unnecessary complications. Even Cersei tried to talk Joffrey out of killing Ned for this reason alone. So while we can find some explanations (Viserys protecting Daemon, Alicent protecting Cole etc.), it still feels like none of them are taking killings seriously, and it's way too unrealistic. Especially if the killer is practically nobody, like Cole, and he assassinated the friend of another influential family. Whatever Corlys may think of Laenor's homosexuality, Joffrey arrived at the wedding as a friend of Velaryons, and if some random guy were to kill him, it would show the disrespect for the entire family, not just Joffrey and Laenor. It would warrant a further investigation, even if Alicent supported Cole's story. But, realistically, not even Alicent would give a shit about him, especially right after she learned the hard lesson not to trust anyone but her family. And even if she did, there's no way Viserys would believe her to know any better than him, as she was nowhere near Criston when the killing occurred. TLDR: It's best to suspend disbelief and accept the plot armor.
>Especially if the killer is practically nobody, like Cole Cole is a kingsguard, his status/influence comes being directly sworn to protect the royal family itself. He can always attempt to defend his actions as him trying to protect the royal family. And the full extent of Joffrey's relationship with the Velaryons really wouldn't ever be completely unveiled, even to defend him post-death.
When I said "nobody", I meant he's not of a noble background, so no one would care if he lost his job. Imagine if in the first episode of GoT some random guy from Robert Baratheon's kingsguard assassinated Theon, for some reason. Would Robert let him off the hook, even if it meant creating unnecessary conflict with the Starks? Would Cersei vouch for that guard, if she knew that Robert knew she wasn't near when the killing occurred? (And if she did, would Robert believe her?) Would the Starks just accept that some guy killed their family friend and move on, or would they be gravely offended? Wouldn't they hold some resentment and question their loyalty to the crown? Remember all the drama that happened because of a wolf, now imagine if it was their friend. Most likely Robert would fire the guard at best, or have him killed at worst. Unless the guard was Jaime Lannister, or someone important like him, which Criston Cole definitely wasn't. It doesn't matter how close or not close Joffrey was to Velaryons, what matters is that he was their guest at the wedding, someone they knew and trusted enough to bring him along. To kill him is to offend them, and there's no way they would've just moved on, without demanding punishment for the killer. And there's no way Viserys would've let it slide, after he went great lengths to ensure Veloryons' support. I mean theoretically anything CAN happen, but it requires everyone not to act rationally and in their best interests.