Better Claim

[walkingWITHcersei]

After reading this book twice I'm more confused than ever on why Ned said Robert had a better Claim. What claim did Ned or any Stark have on the IT? What did I miss?

[Bael's Bastard]

After reading this book twice I'm more confused than ever on why Ned said Robert had a better Claim. What claim did Ned or any Stark have on the IT? What did I miss?

Ned never said or implied he had any Targaryen ancestry. The point is, while Ned and Jon were also leaders of the conquerors, Robert was the leader with the recent Targaryen ancestry (being descended from Aerys II's aunt).

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

After reading this book twice I'm more confused than ever on why Ned said Robert had a better Claim. What claim did Ned or any Stark have on the IT? What did I miss?

Ned had the claim of Conquest, since Ned had actually taken KL (and could thus have claimed the IT for himself upon arriving).

[Colonel Green]

After reading this book twice I'm more confused than ever on why Ned said Robert had a better Claim. What claim did Ned or any Stark have on the IT? What did I miss?

Robert had "the better claim" because he had a blood claim, whereas Ned's would only be via conquest.

Honestly, that was the obvious reading of that line from the beginning, I never understood why everyone assumed House Stark must have Targaryen ancestry, when that was surely the sort of thing the characters in the books would mention.

[Winterfell is Burning]

Honestly, that was the obvious reading of that line from the beginning, I never understood why everyone assumed House Stark must have Targaryen ancestry, when that was surely the sort of thing the characters in the books would mention.

Same here.

[Mithras]

You had the better claim your grace (but Jon has the best).

[thelittledragonthatcould]

After reading this book twice I'm more confused than ever on why Ned said Robert had a better Claim. What claim did Ned or any Stark have on the IT? What did I miss?

There were three of them. Both the Arryns and the Baratheons have intermarried with the Targaryens but Roberts claim was closest.

[UnmaskedLurker]

There were three of them. Both the Arryns and the Baratheons have intermarried with the Targaryens but Roberts claim was closest.

Yes, but the key as between Ned and Robert is that the Starks have never inter-married with the Targaryens (until, of course, Rhaegar and Lyanna, but that is for a different thread), whereas Robert's grandmother was a Targ princess.

[BaguastanSelmy]

Robert had "the better claim" because he had a blood claim, whereas Ned's would only be via conquest.

Honestly, that was the obvious reading of that line from the beginning, I never understood why everyone assumed House Stark must have Targaryen ancestry, when that was surely the sort of thing the characters in the books would mention.

early in aGoT, a Stark-Targaryen marriage theory is based on what Greatjon said

It was the dragons we married, and the dragons are all dead!

So now tWoIaF crushed the theory, the It was the dragons we married seems to be a euphemism for being conquered.

[Colonel Green]

early in aGoT, a Stark-Targaryen marriage theory is based on what Greatjon said

So now tWoIaF crushed the theory, the It was the dragons we married seems to be a euphemism for being conquered.

That was also obviously a metaphor from the beginning. Nothing about the way it was used suggested it was referring to an actual marriage alliance (especially as we were given an account of Torrhen's surrender, and a marriage was clearly not part of it, nor part of the absorption of any of the other kingdoms).

[Ser Cold Fingers]

Ned had the claim of Conquest, since Ned had actually taken KL (and could thus have claimed the IT for himself upon arriving).

This

[Lord Annaly]

Both Ser Jaime and Lord Tywin could also have laid a claim for the Throne as they had "conquered " the king and the capital.

Robert was only chosen when the dust had settled for political expediency to appease the Targ loyalists to bring an end to the split in the realm.

It was only called Robert's Rebellion after Robert was crowned.

But at the time of the Sack of Kings Landing the Throne was up for grabs for anyone who wanted to try take it. But with the mission completed, Aerys killed and Lyanna avenged, there was a great council of sorts where the main players decided to hand it to Robert whether he wanted it or not.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

The name might have only been given after the Rebellion had been fought, but Robert had declared his intent to claim the throne around the time of the Trident, not only after the Sack.

There was no great council.

[Bael's Bastard]

Tywin explicitly tailored his actions in the sack of KL to aiding Robert as king. The notion that it was still up for grabs during or after the sack is absurd. The real rebel leaders (Jon, Ned, Robert, and perhaps, later, Hoster) had obviously already decided before Tywin joined in at the last possible moment. Lannisters were never a consideration, except perhaps by the Lannister loyalists that arrived first. And they never would have survived if they had tried to keep it for themselves.

[Lord Annaly]

The name might have only been given after the Rebellion had been fought, but Robert had declared his intent to claim the throne around the time of the Trident, not only after the Sack.

There was no great council.

Where is it said that Robert decided on being king at the Trident? Before or after he killed Rhaegar?

What I said was "a great council of sorts" meaning a meeting of the great lords such as Stark, Arry, Baratheon, Tully and their advisors and not the huge convocation of every lord of the land. There was obviously a point when it was discussed who was going to draw the short straw.

[Lord Annaly]

Tywin explicitly tailored his actions in the sack of KL to aiding Robert as king. The notion that it was still up for grabs during or after the sack is absurd. The real rebel leaders (Jon, Ned, Robert, and perhaps, later, Hoster) had obviously already decided before Tywin joined in at the last possible moment. Lannisters were never a consideration, except perhaps by the Lannister loyalists that arrived first. And they never would have survived if they had tried to keep it for themselves.

The point was that it was not settled until all the factions had sworn fealty to the new king.

And so in that time of flux anyone could have tried to seize the Throne...and that does not mean they would have been successful but if Tywin had somehow managed to ally with the Reach they could have fought the rebels for it.

Yes it was those in Kings Landing who where prepared to follow the Lannisters if they wanted to take it....so yes at that moment it was still up for grabs.

Just because they did not does not mean that it was not there for the taking. The combined might of the West and the Reach (obviously it would take some fancy negotiations but enemy of my enemy kind of thing) could have faced off against the war-weary rebels for it.

And Tywin did not do it to aid Robert, he did it so that House Lannister was not left out of the post war spoils. Once he believed the rebels were the likely winners he moved. It was only for Tywin that Tywin did it.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

Where is it said that Robert decided on being king at the Trident? Before or after he killed Rhaegar?

The Kingsguard members at the Tower of Joy refer to Robert as the Usurper so clearly they thought he was the one angling to be the next King.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

Where is it said that Robert decided on being king at the Trident? Before or after he killed Rhaegar?

Here

When did Robert proclaim his intention to take the throne? At the outset of the war, or was it a relatively late development?

Robert proclaimed his intention to take the throne ... around the time of the Trident. Would not elaborate any further. Mentioned Robert's claim being stronger than Eddard Stark's and Jon Arryn's, the leaders of the two other great houses that spearheaded the revolution, due to blood ties to the Targaryen's.

with further explanation here

[Note: The following mail refers to information revealed in this report.]

Actually he said around the time of the Trident or just after. Something about the "Just after" comment struck me, especially as he then launched into a discussion of why Robert was the logical king if Viserys or an as yet unborn Dany were not desired as king.

and an explanation from Ran about these two sources here

ETA: Ahh, here and a clarification here. George pins it as being right around the Trident, and someone says he actually said "just after". I'm guessing it'd have to be in the immediate aftermath of the battle, with Rhaegar dead, and the death of any hope (from Ned and maybe Jon Arryn) that they could stop short of bringing an end to the Targaryen dynasty; but before Robert dispatches Ned to chase after the routed royal host, since it seems clear Ned was party to the decision.

So it seems to have occured after Rhaegar's death.

[Lord Annaly]

Here

with further explanation here

and an explanation from Ran about these two sources here

Thank you.

So it seems to have occured after Rhaegar's death.

So it does go someway to show that it was a late development in the rebellion before it was fixed on who would be king.

Similar to Robb Stark not thinking it through to what would happend when he got to Kings Landing and killed the king. It was his own bannermen who put the (silly) idea in his head. Though it would seem that Robb had no intention to be King of the Seven Kingdoms , just two kingdoms.

[AryaNymeriaVisenya]

early in aGoT, a Stark-Targaryen marriage theory is based on what Greatjon said

So now tWoIaF crushed the theory, the It was the dragons we married seems to be a euphemism for being conquered.

Well they weren't conquered, they bent the knee. Which is submissive and reminiscent of a wedding. Basically, we chose this union with the dragons. The dragons are gone and we've changed our minds.