Jump to content

Who would be King?


Khal BlackfyreO

Recommended Posts

Just now, LionoftheWest said:

You do realize that getting Gregor's head will change nothing in regards the Martells? They Tywin and all his brood dead, and Lorch to that, and giving them crumbles will not satisfy them as can be seen when Tyrion tries that very, foolish, trick.

But on another line, Robert's Rebellion was indeed never anything but a deposement of the Targaryens, all Targaryens, from the Iron Throne and the notion that it was actually some internal Targaryen thing makes no sense. I can't see how even the most convoluted arguments can land with that Robert should inherit the throne after Aerys. And its a rather strong argument that Robert didn't take the name Targaryen but kept the name Baratheon with all its associations when sitting on the throne.

a- You are probably right. However they will be better off with this deal then with what they actually got. Hoster wouldn't simply laugh off at the Royal family's deaths but would send emissaries to try to patch things up with the Martells, Jamie would be kicked out from the KG in disgrace, Gregor will lose his head and a Targeryan will marry within the royal family again, legitimising all this mess up. The Dornish fought and lost but they aren't stupid or unreasonable. The Lannisters are needed back to the fold, what happened to Elia and her children was horrendous but its synonmous to what happens in medieval warfare and the Kingdom need the Lannisters badly. They would have to relent especially if the Targs also bend the knee.

b- That is, in my opinion, Robert's rebellion biggest weakness. I agree with them rebelling. I mean they hardly had a choice about that (apart from willingly losing their heads) and many respect that. However by removing the Targeryans out they created an alternative rule (Baratheon or Targeryan) which kept Westeros on shaky ground during Robert's rule (Greyjoy rebellion) and afterwards (Danny and Aegon returning to Westeros). Aerys was mad, Rhaegar died in battle and this necessary rebellion was bound to cause rifts which would probably cause change in management. However Aerys children were innocent and no one can deny the good the Targs did throughout the centuries (uniting Westeros, protecting it with their dragons, allowing the former kings to still rule in their land under the title of Lord Paramount etc). They surely deserved and should have gotten a second chance both for their sake and that of Westeros. If the Targ's heir accept to bend the knee and his sister is married off in the royal bloodline then the usurper will cease to be an usurper at all

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LionoftheWest said:

But on another line, Robert's Rebellion was indeed never anything but a deposement of the Targaryens, all Targaryens, from the Iron Throne and the notion that it was actually some internal Targaryen thing makes no sense. I can't see how even the most convoluted arguments can land with that Robert should inherit the throne after Aerys. And its a rather strong argument that Robert didn't take the name Targaryen but kept the name Baratheon with all its associations when sitting on the throne.

That wasn't the point of Robert's Rebellion. If it had been then Ned and Jon had proclaimed Robert the new king back in the Vale. He would not only have declared his intention to claim the throne around the time of the Trident.

Robert not taking the Targaryen name doesn't prove anything. We also have no reason to believe that Laenor or Jacaerys Velaryon would have taken the Targaryen name had they ascended the Iron Throne. But nobody can doubt that Robert Baratheon was related closely enough to Aerys II to actually take the Targaryen name if he wanted to. Him not taking it doesn't change his ancestry. Not to mention that a king can call himself whatever the hell he likes. If he decrees his name is 'Targaryen' then people will call him Targaryen.

But Robert had no intention of doing so in any case.

Robert's Rebellion is actually pretty similar to the actual Wars of the Roses. Robert Baratheon is a cousin of the ruling dynasty (like Edward IV on whom he is based) who topples an ineffectual/mad king (Henry VI). Nobody in Westeros even considers the chance of some dude not closely related to the Targaryen dynasty should sit the Iron Throne. The only guy coming up with that kind of idea is Euron Greyjoy in AFfC. Not even Robb Stark thought he had a right to sit the Iron Throne or intended to actually conquer it while he was controlling two of the Seven Kingdoms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

That wasn't the point of Robert's Rebellion. If it had been then Ned and Jon had proclaimed Robert the new king back in the Vale. He would not only have declared his intention to claim the throne around the time of the Trident.

Robert not taking the Targaryen name doesn't prove anything. We also have no reason to believe that Laenor or Jacaerys Velaryon would have taken the Targaryen name had they ascended the Iron Throne. But nobody can doubt that Robert Baratheon was related closely enough to Aerys II to actually take the Targaryen name if he wanted to. Him not taking it doesn't change his ancestry. Not to mention that a king can call himself whatever the hell he likes. If he decrees his name is 'Targaryen' then people will call him Targaryen.

But Robert had no intention of doing so in any case.

Robert's Rebellion is actually pretty similar to the actual Wars of the Roses. Robert Baratheon is a cousin of the ruling dynasty (like Edward IV on whom he is based) who topples an ineffectual/mad king (Henry VI). Nobody in Westeros even considers the chance of some dude not closely related to the Targaryen dynasty should sit the Iron Throne. The only guy coming up with that kind of idea is Euron Greyjoy in AFfC. Not even Robb Stark thought he had a right to sit the Iron Throne or intended to actually conquer it while he was controlling two of the Seven Kingdoms.

I don´t think they were sure themselves what 'their point was' in the beginning.  The rebellion was based on resisting authority exercised for authorities sake, injustice, and to save the lives of what were little more than innocent boys at the time.  Everything else probably just kind of evolved over time and circumstances.  I don´t think there is any real interest in 'preserving the Targaryen line.'  And while Robert´s link with that bloodline, may have given him the 'best claim'  The fact is that anybody with the actual house name 'Targaryen' is either killed or totally removed from the equation. 

  All in all there is a sense of devolution in all this, the seven kingdoms were constantly at war with each other, rising and falling in constant flux of power and dominions, and the Targs arrived with their superweapons and bent all the kingdoms beneath their yoke.  They proved that their only real competition was themselves in the Dance of the dragons, but at the same time removed the real reason for their dominance in that strife and the years after.  Then came the Blackfyre pretenders, people of Targ blood but not Targ legitimacy, that were defeated but not decimated, and finally Robert´s rebellion, where now forces from outside the family are once again exercising their power and influence, but still maintaining united under a non-Targ house (but with Targ blood) for just long enough.  Maybe the next logical step is to go back to the original seven kingdoms, disjointed and scrabbling for power, or maybe it is time for a Targ to reassert themselves with some superweapons...we shall see. 

Either way, as far as I´m concerned, the Targ dynasty has ended, Dany sure doesn´t consider Robert family, and his own actions to stomp out dragonseed and keep his house name suggest as much from his perspective.  Even if his ancestors give his claim more legitmacy, the line in the sand between Targ and Baratheon is pretty clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Khal BlackfyreO said:

I don´t think they were sure themselves what 'their point was' in the beginning.  The rebellion was based on resisting authority exercised for authorities sake, injustice, and to save the lives of what were little more than innocent boys at the time.  Everything else probably just kind of evolved over time and circumstances.  I don´t think there is any real interest in 'preserving the Targaryen line.'  And while Robert´s link with that bloodline, may have given him the 'best claim'  The fact is that anybody with the actual house name 'Targaryen' is either killed or totally removed from the equation. 

Neither Robert nor Ned were innocent boys when the Rebellion broke out. They were around twenty, men grown for years. It is Robert's own legal claim to the throne that enables the rebel lords to make him king in the end. If Robert had had as much royal blood as Ned that wouldn't have worked. Then the victorious rebels would have had to crown Viserys III or Aegon VI to exercise power in his name for the next decades.

9 hours ago, Khal BlackfyreO said:

All in all there is a sense of devolution in all this, the seven kingdoms were constantly at war with each other, rising and falling in constant flux of power and dominions, and the Targs arrived with their superweapons and bent all the kingdoms beneath their yoke.  They proved that their only real competition was themselves in the Dance of the dragons, but at the same time removed the real reason for their dominance in that strife and the years after.  Then came the Blackfyre pretenders, people of Targ blood but not Targ legitimacy, that were defeated but not decimated, and finally Robert´s rebellion, where now forces from outside the family are once again exercising their power and influence, but still maintaining united under a non-Targ house (but with Targ blood) for just long enough.  Maybe the next logical step is to go back to the original seven kingdoms, disjointed and scrabbling for power, or maybe it is time for a Targ to reassert themselves with some superweapons...we shall see.

There is some sense of ambition and rebellion but no hint for a devolution back to the Seven Kingdoms. There are only three former royal lines left - Arryn, Lannister, and Stark - and of those only the Starks could have had any inclination to ever crown themselves.

9 hours ago, Khal BlackfyreO said:

Either way, as far as I´m concerned, the Targ dynasty has ended, Dany sure doesn´t consider Robert family, and his own actions to stomp out dragonseed and keep his house name suggest as much from his perspective.  Even if his ancestors give his claim more legitmacy, the line in the sand between Targ and Baratheon is pretty clear.

As long as there are still Targaryen descendants out there the dynasty didn't really die. Perhaps the male line is extinct but that doesn't mean the dynasty is dead. And in a dynastic sense the Baratheons only become important when Princess Rhaelle marries into the family. Prior to that they are only very distant relations of the royal line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Neither Robert nor Ned were innocent boys when the Rebellion broke out. They were around twenty, men grown for years. It is Robert's own legal claim to the throne that enables the rebel lords to make him king in the end. If Robert had had as much royal blood as Ned that wouldn't have worked. Then the victorious rebels would have had to crown Viserys III or Aegon VI to exercise power in his name for the next decades.

True, I had my facts mixed up, though I find it confusing that they were still wards in the Vale at that age, I thought a wardship ended much sooner.  I still resist the idea that they ever would have crowned another Targaryen, their claim was already better than Robert´s anyway. 

 

15 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

There is some sense of ambition and rebellion but no hint for a devolution back to the Seven Kingdoms. There are only three former royal lines left - Arryn, Lannister, and Stark - and of those only the Starks could have had any inclination to ever crown themselves.

In the sense of Royal lines maybe that is all that is left, but each region is seeking power for itself and vying for the throne, The Lannisters through marriage to Robert (and an Incestuous takeover) The North through real rebellion, The Vale through total isolationism (maybe not a move towards power but still towards separation), Dorne through Doran´s plotting, The Reach through Margary´s many marriages.  It's not a total return to the seven kingdoms, but it is a move towards that, through a total lack of unification.  Barring interventions (which surely will come from one place or another) I could easily see Westeros falling back to its Pre-Conquest state.  Everyone wants to be the ruler of all the seven kingdoms, but none of them are strong enough to win over the others.

 

15 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

As long as there are still Targaryen descendants out there the dynasty didn't really die. Perhaps the male line is extinct but that doesn't mean the dynasty is dead. And in a dynastic sense the Baratheons only become important when Princess Rhaelle marries into the family. Prior to that they are only very distant relations of the royal line.

For me a dynasty is dead when it falls from power, otherwise its just a family.  And you can maintain that the Targs live on through Robert and I can´t deny that in a sense that is true, but neither Robert nor the remaining Targs really believe that Robert is their true successor, and he does not take the Targ name.  Baratheons are the new dynasty.  Its connection to the Targs just gives it more validity and a nice backstory, like Rome pretending it was founded by survivors from Troy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Khal BlackfyreO said:

True, I had my facts mixed up, though I find it confusing that they were still wards in the Vale at that age, I thought a wardship ended much sooner.  I still resist the idea that they ever would have crowned another Targaryen, their claim was already better than Robert´s anyway. 

They weren't wards. They were just visiting with their old foster father. Robert Baratheon was Lord of Storm's End in his own right for years at this point. He already was a man grown when his father died in 279 AC.

The rebels still could have claimed the real power at court through a Targaryen puppet king. Say, by marrying Robert's daughter by Lyanna (or Cersei) to either Viserys III or Aegon VI. Lord Unwin Peake tried to pull off something like that during the Regency of Aegon III.

8 hours ago, Khal BlackfyreO said:

In the sense of Royal lines maybe that is all that is left, but each region is seeking power for itself and vying for the throne, The Lannisters through marriage to Robert (and an Incestuous takeover) The North through real rebellion, The Vale through total isolationism (maybe not a move towards power but still towards separation), Dorne through Doran´s plotting, The Reach through Margary´s many marriages.  It's not a total return to the seven kingdoms, but it is a move towards that, through a total lack of unification.  Barring interventions (which surely will come from one place or another) I could easily see Westeros falling back to its Pre-Conquest state.  Everyone wants to be the ruler of all the seven kingdoms, but none of them are strong enough to win over the others.

I think you falsely equate 'the regions' with the ruling houses of those regions. There is no local patriotism outside (perhaps) Dorne and the North. The various smaller houses don't necessarily look to their legal overlords as their leaders. They try to rise to the top themselves. And this happened all the time. Just look to what prominence the Hightowers, Harroways, Strongs, Brackens, and Blackwoods rose during the Targaryen era. This taste of power on the mid-tier level could easily lead to a total fragmentation of the Realm because there is no reason to believe that the smaller houses suddenly recognize the kingship of the Starks, Arryns, and Lannisters again after all those years. And nobody should actually recognize the royal authority of a Tully or a Tyrell. 

8 hours ago, Khal BlackfyreO said:

For me a dynasty is dead when it falls from power, otherwise its just a family.  And you can maintain that the Targs live on through Robert and I can´t deny that in a sense that is true, but neither Robert nor the remaining Targs really believe that Robert is their true successor, and he does not take the Targ name.  Baratheons are the new dynasty.  Its connection to the Targs just gives it more validity and a nice backstory, like Rome pretending it was founded by survivors from Troy.

That is not the point. The point is that Robert and Rhaegar/Viserys/Dany are cousins. They are descended from the same line of kings. Just as the Lancasters and Yorks were during the Wars of the Roses. That makes them more or less the same dynasty. They can give themselves different family names if they want to but that doesn't really change anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the moment  Jon,Ned and Robert joined forces a great alliance was forged no matter who was king: North, Riverlands, Vale, Stormlands (and from the time of Aerys's death Crownlands and Westerlands). No one could oppose them. A big plus for this alliance was that none of the 3 leaders wanted to become king. But:

  • Ned did not worship the Seven and was not as charesmatic as Robert.
  • Jon was old and childless

Robert was young, charesmatic, he had won the most battles in the war, he was unmarried and he was partly a Targaryen.

The new Baratheon dynasty could appear as a continuation of the previous Targaryen dynasty for Targaryen loyalists (Darrys,Reachmen, Velaryons, etc.) 

Many lords could think that they could get more access to the Throne with the new dynasty (Targaryens were usually closer to Velaryons, Baratheons, Arryns, Tullys and Hightowers)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

They weren't wards. They were just visiting with their old foster father. Robert Baratheon was Lord of Storm's End in his own right for years at this point. He already was a man grown when his father died in 279 AC.

The rebels still could have claimed the real power at court through a Targaryen puppet king. Say, by marrying Robert's daughter by Lyanna (or Cersei) to either Viserys III or Aegon VI. Lord Unwin Peake tried to pull off something like that during the Regency of Aegon III.

I think you falsely equate 'the regions' with the ruling houses of those regions. There is no local patriotism outside (perhaps) Dorne and the North. The various smaller houses don't necessarily look to their legal overlords as their leaders. They try to rise to the top themselves. And this happened all the time. Just look to what prominence the Hightowers, Harroways, Strongs, Brackens, and Blackwoods rose during the Targaryen era. This taste of power on the mid-tier level could easily lead to a total fragmentation of the Realm because there is no reason to believe that the smaller houses suddenly recognize the kingship of the Starks, Arryns, and Lannisters again after all those years. And nobody should actually recognize the royal authority of a Tully or a Tyrell. 

That is not the point. The point is that Robert and Rhaegar/Viserys/Dany are cousins. They are descended from the same line of kings. Just as the Lancasters and Yorks were during the Wars of the Roses. That makes them more or less the same dynasty. They can give themselves different family names if they want to but that doesn't really change anything.

I'm totally going to start revealing spoilers from the show if you continue to fail to concede to me on any point!!  XP

I don't think the rebels were interested in the slightest in the continuance of the Targ dynasty, I think Robert's family history lent his claim legitimacy, but they couldn't be more anti-Targ if they tried.  Aegon (if not dead) and Viserys both had better claims than Robert and they were both sold down the river.  Simply because people were tired of a generation of a great king and a generation of a crazy/lecherous/war mongering/ cruel despot, I don't think the trade off was worth it to them anymore and they were ready to start over. 

I don't doubt that the lesser houses would vie for power, one doesn't have to look any further than the Boltons, Freys, and even the Florents to see that element, but that was no different under the Targs or in the age of the Seven Kingdoms either.  The lack of a true Royal line doesn't matter, the Great houses are just that, the greatest houses of their regions, typically with the strongest castles, richest lands and the best ties to bannermen.  If the central government fell apart, they would naturally be the focus points for each of their regions, and even if strong opposition arose (like the Reynes and the Tarbecks?)  We could generally expect similar results.  I don't doubt that the majority of great houses would be able to consolidate their local power, and even if any failed, it would only result in the rise of a new great house to take its place.

You can argue all you want about relations meaning that its the same dynasty, but it is the name that makes the dynasty.  Just look up Henry the III of France, the last French king of the Valois dynasty and Henry of Navarre, his successor, who was the first King of the Bourbon dynasty, both were distant cousins and direct male-line descendants of Louis the IX of the Capetian dynasty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 31 juillet 2016 at 6:09 PM, Lord Varys said:

But Robert was effectively just another Targaryen. Through the female, true, but still a descendant of the Targaryen kings. He could even have called himself Targaryen if he had wanted to (if Joffrey Lydden could take the Lannister name and Harrold Hardyng is likely to take the Arryn name eventually there is no reason to believe that Robert could have called himself Targaryen). The point is that he wanted to distance himself from the previous dynasty despite the fact he was closely related to them..

Well, the Targaryen blood wasn't spread across Westeros or Essos the same way medieval European royalty married each other. There were only very few legitimate female branches of House Targaryen, and we actually don't know whether any such branches aside from Stannis-Shireen, Selwyn-Brienne, and Doran-Arianne-Trystane still exist. The name of the dynasty changed, but that was Robert's decision. He could have taken the Targaryen name, presumably. But names don't really matter. Robert is still Aegon V's great-grandson and Jaehaerys II's grandnephew.

There was still a pretty big chance that Viserys III would be proclaimed king by Jaime and Tywin Lannister. Jaime considered that. Had he done it Robert might not have become king unless the rebels would have been prepared to continue the war against Tywin and possibly also the Tyrells.

But the point in Robert's case is that he had a legal claim as Aegon V's great-grandson. His claim wasn't as good as Viserys III's, of course, but not all that bad, either. Robert was just a successful usurper whose success at usurping was based not so much on his military prowess and strength of arms but on his royal ancestry.

House Baratheon would only have been a 'new dynasty' if Robert hadn't been related to Aerys II and Rhaegar at all. But the political landscape of Westeros wasn't ready back then (and still isn't right now) for some dude with no royal blood whatsoever (or the appearance thereof) to claim dominion over the entire Realm. No great lord in the Realm would support a man without royal blood. It is royal blood that makes you special and sets you apart from the other great lords of the Realm. If just some guy can sit the Iron Throne then there is no reason why any of them should have accepted Robert as their king. And Balon Greyjoy did not, anyway.

If Robert hadn't had the advantage of his royal ancestry the likes of Tywin and Mace would have been very tempted to just murder Robert, too, and seize the throne from themselves over his dead body. But nothing of this sort ever happens, not even after Robert's death.

Here's a quote from aCoK:

 

"Renly shrugged. "Tell me, what right did my brother Robert ever have to the Iron Throne?" He did not wait for an answer. "Oh, there was talk of the blood ties between Baratheon and Targaryen, of weddings a hundred years past, of second sons and elder daughters. No one but the maesters care about any of it. Robert won the throne with his warhammer."

 

So the whole Targaryen argument was brought afterwards. Most accepted Robert's rule because he was powerful, got them rid of a mad king, and probably it helped a bit he was from the female line. But that was not the main argument, far from it. As for Lannisters and Tyrells: they saw a greater interest in folding to a new king than to go on a new rebellion who was pointless once Aerys and Rhaeger were dead. You overestimate the importance of the Targaryen lineage.

On 1 août 2016 at 5:08 AM, devilish said:

 

b- That is, in my opinion, Robert's rebellion biggest weakness. I agree with them rebelling. I mean they hardly had a choice about that (apart from willingly losing their heads) and many respect that. However by removing the Targeryans out they created an alternative rule (Baratheon or Targeryan) which kept Westeros on shaky ground during Robert's rule (Greyjoy rebellion) and afterwards (Danny and Aegon returning to Westeros). Aerys was mad, Rhaegar died in battle and this necessary rebellion was bound to cause rifts which would probably cause change in management. However Aerys children were innocent and no one can deny the good the Targs did throughout the centuries (uniting Westeros, protecting it with their dragons, allowing the former kings to still rule in their land under the title of Lord Paramount etc). They surely deserved and should have gotten a second chance both for their sake and that of Westeros. If the Targ's heir accept to bend the knee and his sister is married off in the royal bloodline then the usurper will cease to be an usurper at all

 

The Greyjoy Rebellion failed. Balon bet the others lords wouldn't follow Robert, but he proved them wrong... So the kingdom wasn't on such shaky ground... As for Danny/Viserys/Aegon: we don't see much lords willing to accept them. Most lords accept Robert's rule and it doesn't seem to be a problem that he not a "pure" Targaryen.

On 2 août 2016 at 5:26 PM, Lord Varys said:

 

I think you falsely equate 'the regions' with the ruling houses of those regions. There is no local patriotism outside (perhaps) Dorne and the North. The various smaller houses don't necessarily look to their legal overlords as their leaders. They try to rise to the top themselves. And this happened all the time. Just look to what prominence the Hightowers, Harroways, Strongs, Brackens, and Blackwoods rose during the Targaryen era. This taste of power on the mid-tier level could easily lead to a total fragmentation of the Realm because there is no reason to believe that the smaller houses suddenly recognize the kingship of the Starks, Arryns, and Lannisters again after all those years. And nobody should actually recognize the royal authority of a Tully or a Tyrell. 

 

No local patriotism? It's pretty clear that the Vale, the Stormlands and the Westerland have some kind of local patriotism. And the link between the High Lords and other lords are pretty strong. There are some mid-level lords that are trying to rise above, but no one really contradicts the rule of the Great Houses... Most answer the call when the banners are called.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Anton Martell said:

Here's a quote from aCoK:

 

"Renly shrugged. "Tell me, what right did my brother Robert ever have to the Iron Throne?" He did not wait for an answer. "Oh, there was talk of the blood ties between Baratheon and Targaryen, of weddings a hundred years past, of second sons and elder daughters. No one but the maesters care about any of it. Robert won the throne with his warhammer."

 

So the whole Targaryen argument was brought afterwards. Most accepted Robert's rule because he was powerful, got them rid of a mad king, and probably it helped a bit he was from the female line. But that was not the main argument, far from it. As for Lannisters and Tyrells: they saw a greater interest in folding to a new king than to go on a new rebellion who was pointless once Aerys and Rhaeger were dead. You overestimate the importance of the Targaryen lineage.

 

That is Renly being stupid. And this quote makes little sense in context now, anyway. The last Targaryen-Baratheon wasn't 'a hundred years' past and it didn't involve a second son or an elder daughter - Ormund Baratheon was Lord Lyonel's heir and Rhaelle Targaryen was Aegon V's youngest daughter.

Not to mention that any nobleman who was the grandson of a royal princess and the great-grandson of a king would not care about that fact is insane. Renly has to know who his paternal grandmother was and who her father was.

7 hours ago, Anton Martell said:

No local patriotism? It's pretty clear that the Vale, the Stormlands and the Westerland have some kind of local patriotism. And the link between the High Lords and other lords are pretty strong. There are some mid-level lords that are trying to rise above, but no one really contradicts the rule of the Great Houses... Most answer the call when the banners are called.

There are no signs of local patriotism on the lordly level, no. People doing their duty is quite different from people setting their region over another or people thinking they should be independent or a separate nation.

People also mostly follow the great houses because the Crown has put them above them. It is different in the North and Dorne but in general people only follow charismatic overlords. Nobody in the Stormlands likes Stannis and that's the reason why they stuck with Renly rather than him.

Not to mention that it is one thing to follow a great lord as your overlord and another to make him your king.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Anton Martell said:

Here's a quote from aCoK:

 

"Renly shrugged. "Tell me, what right did my brother Robert ever have to the Iron Throne?" He did not wait for an answer. "Oh, there was talk of the blood ties between Baratheon and Targaryen, of weddings a hundred years past, of second sons and elder daughters. No one but the maesters care about any of it. Robert won the throne with his warhammer."

 

So the whole Targaryen argument was brought afterwards. Most accepted Robert's rule because he was powerful, got them rid of a mad king, and probably it helped a bit he was from the female line. But that was not the main argument, far from it. As for Lannisters and Tyrells: they saw a greater interest in folding to a new king than to go on a new rebellion who was pointless once Aerys and Rhaeger were dead. You overestimate the importance of the Targaryen lineage.

The Greyjoy Rebellion failed. Balon bet the others lords wouldn't follow Robert, but he proved them wrong... So the kingdom wasn't on such shaky ground... As for Danny/Viserys/Aegon: we don't see much lords willing to accept them. Most lords accept Robert's rule and it doesn't seem to be a problem that he not a "pure" Targaryen.

No local patriotism? It's pretty clear that the Vale, the Stormlands and the Westerland have some kind of local patriotism. And the link between the High Lords and other lords are pretty strong. There are some mid-level lords that are trying to rise above, but no one really contradicts the rule of the Great Houses... Most answer the call when the banners are called.

I think that the Greyjoy rebellion is a very poor example to use. 


a-    The Greyjoys are weak. They lack the resources to seriously challenge the crown and while they are strong at sea, their strength melts like snow in summer once fighting on land. 
b-    The Greyjoys aren’t liked very much. They are pirates who lived on reaving. No one wants to have pirates as neighbours. 
c-    Even if all other houses turned their back on Robert, Robert could still rely on enough support to crush the Greyjoys. A combined force of the Stormlands, the Vale, the Riverlands, the North and the rich Westerlands can crush into submission anybody in Westerlands, let alone the Greyjoys.
d-    The remaining Targs were still whelps. They had no military support whatsoever and they could be married off just yet. 

C and D are quite significant. Under the present setup it was basically impossible for the royalists to rise. However time was in the Targs side. Robert was able to take the crown because he was brave and he had the friendship of 2 great houses. They also had no choice (Lord Arryn couldn’t go past his honour, Ned would have lost his head). The bond would be weaker in the next generation. Sweet Robin wasn’t Jon Arryn, Joffrey was certainly no Robert, Renly didn’t like Joffrey very much either and Robb wasn’t Joffrey’s bitch as Ned was for Robert. Taking into account that soon enough the Targ whelps would grew older then things could change quite radically especially if Joffrey acted as Joffrey + Robb finds out that R+L=JS


A rule by conquest was inevitable. However ruling through that circumstances wasn’t only optional but also highly undesirable as it gave opposition an alternative to the current rule. Robert should have worked 24/7 to avoid a Baratheon version of Blackfyre-Targ situation especially since this time round the opposition have a stronger claim to the crown than the rulers themselves. If I was Robert I would ensure that the royal family would still be alive (apart from Aerys and Rhaegar of course) and I would offer a pardon + land (Griffin's Roost?) to Viserys and Danny as long as they return to Westeros and accept the new circumstances. Elia and her children will remain my guests. In due time Rhaenys would be married off to my first born, while Aegon would be married off in a matriarchal way to Stannis’s daughter, which in turn will allow a Targ to indirectly rule their ancestral home. Id free Jamie from KG and marry off Tyrion to Danny while I make sure to marry off Viserys to a minor lord’s daughter. In a generation or two the Targ house would be a minor house in Westeros.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, devilish said:

I think that the Greyjoy rebellion is a very poor example to use. 


a-    The Greyjoys are weak. They lack the resources to seriously challenge the crown and while they are strong at sea, their strength melts like snow in summer once fighting on land. 
b-    The Greyjoys aren’t liked very much. They are pirates who lived on reaving. No one wants to have pirates as neighbours. 
c-    Even if all other houses turned their back on Robert, Robert could still rely on enough support to crush the Greyjoys. A combined force of the Stormlands, the Vale, the Riverlands, the North and the rich Westerlands can crush into submission anybody in Westerlands, let alone the Greyjoys.
d-    The remaining Targs were still whelps. They had no military support whatsoever and they could be married off just yet. 

C and D are quite significant. Under the present setup it was basically impossible for the royalists to rise. However time was in the Targs side. Robert was able to take the crown because he was brave and he had the friendship of 2 great houses. They also had no choice (Lord Arryn couldn’t go past his honour, Ned would have lost his head). The bond would be weaker in the next generation. Sweet Robin wasn’t Jon Arryn, Joffrey was certainly no Robert, Renly didn’t like Joffrey very much either and Robb wasn’t Joffrey’s bitch as Ned was for Robert. Taking into account that soon enough the Targ whelps would grew older then things could change quite radically especially if Joffrey acted as Joffrey + Robb finds out that R+L=JS


A rule by conquest was inevitable. However ruling through that circumstances wasn’t only optional but also highly undesirable as it gave opposition an alternative to the current rule. Robert should have worked 24/7 to avoid a Baratheon version of Blackfyre-Targ situation especially since this time round the opposition have a stronger claim to the crown than the rulers themselves. If I was Robert I would ensure that the royal family would still be alive (apart from Aerys and Rhaegar of course) and I would offer a pardon + land (Griffin's Roost?) to Viserys and Danny as long as they return to Westeros and accept the new circumstances. Elia and her children will remain my guests. In due time Rhaenys would be married off to my first born, while Aegon would be married off in a matriarchal way to Stannis’s daughter, which in turn will allow a Targ to indirectly rule their ancestral home. Id free Jamie from KG and marry off Tyrion to Danny while I make sure to marry off Viserys to a minor lord’s daughter. In a generation or two the Targ house would be a minor house in Westeros.
 

About the Greyjoys:

 

I disagree. In a SSM GRRM clearly states that Greyjoy underestimated the lords support to Robert, hence why he tried to rebel. It's not such a bad example since it was necessary for a great force to come down on the Greyjoy, and especially that most lords followed Roberts call. They could have find shitty excuses to not intervene, they didn't and they actually contributed. That proves some degree of loyalty. 

 

And you need to also acknowledge that people were probably tired after the rebellion and did not want to fight afterwards, especially since Robert wasn't such a bad king for the other lords/people (he wasn't a great king all in all, but for the smallfolks he didn't do shit that would make them hate him, plus he had the luck to have a mild winter+great summer with him).

 

The rest of your argument makes some sense, but I disagree with your strategy: it's a double edged sword. If you keep the legitimate heirs close and visible, other lords will remember they exist, and you could face another rebellion. Your strategy might work, but I prefer to oust everyone right from the bat. Because your own lineage will be questionned. If Viserys still exists, he will contest Joffrey's rule, that's nearly a certainty. 

 

 

20 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That is Renly being stupid. And this quote makes little sense in context now, anyway. The last Targaryen-Baratheon wasn't 'a hundred years' past and it didn't involve a second son or an elder daughter - Ormund Baratheon was Lord Lyonel's heir and Rhaelle Targaryen was Aegon V's youngest daughter.

Not to mention that any nobleman who was the grandson of a royal princess and the great-grandson of a king would not care about that fact is insane. Renly has to know who his paternal grandmother was and who her father was.

 

(I think the Targaryen lineage of Robert might not have been well established for GRRM in AcoK, but that's irrelevant I guess). Nevertheless, the Renly quote isn't that stupid. It shows that what was instrumental in Robert success was strength. People didn't follow him in his rebellion because of lineage, but because he had a just cause, was strong and the other king was mad. The targaryen lineage is just the cherry on top. Otherwise a lot of lords and characters would mention that lineage at some point. Especially to Dany. Loyalist to the king like Barristan would mention it if it mattered that much...

 

Quote

There are no signs of local patriotism on the lordly level, no. People doing their duty is quite different from people setting their region over another or people thinking they should be independent or a separate nation.

People also mostly follow the great houses because the Crown has put them above them. It is different in the North and Dorne but in general people only follow charismatic overlords. Nobody in the Stormlands likes Stannis and that's the reason why they stuck with Renly rather than him.

Not to mention that it is one thing to follow a great lord as your overlord and another to make him your king.

I do not agree with that. There is a very strong feeling for the lords of the Vale linked to House Arryn, regardless of who is the lord (hence why Robert Arryn rule is not disputed, and some are very loyal to him). i also have the impression that people from the Vale see each other as a somewhat separate entity (like the North/Dorne etc.)

 Also, in Arys Oakheart POV he talks about belonging to the Reach and what it means for him to be in Dorne (and since House Oakheart si super far from Dorne, it's not as if he were a March lord). I think the people of the Westerlands have been loyal to the lannister for a long time (and the rains of castamere dismissed any doubt for sure). 

You can sometime not like a high lord (like Stannis), but then you chose someone from the same family, which again proves a loyalty to the High house. 

I think saying there is no local patriotism other than in Dorne/The North (where it's surely way more important) is incorrect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Anton Martell said:

About the Greyjoys:

 

I disagree. In a SSM GRRM clearly states that Greyjoy underestimated the lords support to Robert, hence why he tried to rebel. It's not such a bad example since it was necessary for a great force to come down on the Greyjoy, and especially that most lords followed Roberts call. They could have find shitty excuses to not intervene, they didn't and they actually contributed. That proves some degree of loyalty. 

 

And you need to also acknowledge that people were probably tired after the rebellion and did not want to fight afterwards, especially since Robert wasn't such a bad king for the other lords/people (he wasn't a great king all in all, but for the smallfolks he didn't do shit that would make them hate him, plus he had the luck to have a mild winter+great summer with him).

 

The rest of your argument makes some sense, but I disagree with your strategy: it's a double edged sword. If you keep the legitimate heirs close and visible, other lords will remember they exist, and you could face another rebellion. Your strategy might work, but I prefer to oust everyone right from the bat. Because your own lineage will be questionned. If Viserys still exists, he will contest Joffrey's rule, that's nearly a certainty. 

 

 

 

(I think the Targaryen lineage of Robert might not have been well established for GRRM in AcoK, but that's irrelevant I guess). Nevertheless, the Renly quote isn't that stupid. It shows that what was instrumental in Robert success was strength. People didn't follow him in his rebellion because of lineage, but because he had a just cause, was strong and the other king was mad. The targaryen lineage is just the cherry on top. Otherwise a lot of lords and characters would mention that lineage at some point. Especially to Dany. Loyalist to the king like Barristan would mention it if it mattered that much...

 

I do not agree with that. There is a very strong feeling for the lords of the Vale linked to House Arryn, regardless of who is the lord (hence why Robert Arryn rule is not disputed, and some are very loyal to him). i also have the impression that people from the Vale see each other as a somewhat separate entity (like the North/Dorne etc.)

 Also, in Arys Oakheart POV he talks about belonging to the Reach and what it means for him to be in Dorne (and since House Oakheart si super far from Dorne, it's not as if he were a March lord). I think the people of the Westerlands have been loyal to the lannister for a long time (and the rains of castamere dismissed any doubt for sure). 

You can sometime not like a high lord (like Stannis), but then you chose someone from the same family, which again proves a loyalty to the High house. 

I think saying there is no local patriotism other than in Dorne/The North (where it's surely way more important) is incorrect.

Lets do a resume of things. King Robert holds control over the Crownlands and the Stormlands so if he goes to war then the majority of the houses residing there will join him. Stannis is Lord of dragonstone so he will join him too. Eddard is Robert’s best mate and he’s married to the Tully girl (same as the hand of the king), so the Riverlands and the North will join him too. Lord Arryn is hand of the king so the Vale will join by proxy. Not to forget that Balon went on burning Tywin’s fleet (and making him look like an idiot in the process) which mean that the Westerlands will join the fray. That leads us to two major houses ie the Tyrells and the Martells and a couple of bannermen who might decide to act like jerks. 


Assuming that these houses would overlook the fact that the Greyjoys are simply pirates who want to return to a time of plundering castles and chaos and rebel, how on earth do they hope to survive? Dorne have lost too many soldiers to be relevant in the wars to come. The Tyrells can raise a huge army but it would be hounded from nearly every side (Riverlands, Crownlands, Stormlands, Westerlands). Not to forget that


a-    The Tyrells wealth rest mostly on their fields. Crops and war do not go hand in hand.
b-    It would give the Florents the perfect excuse to push their claim to the Reach. The Tyrells would be fighting the Baratheon King twice (once as oathbreakers). The Florents on the other hand had married the King’s brother, they have marital links with the military arm of Reach and are therefore more reliable


So in few words, Balon’s plan was stupid and there’s nothing to underestimate there. Its like Cuba deciding to invade the US because most of the US citizens are torn between Clinton and Trump. 


Assuming no dragons were involved, Robert and his offspring would have remained in command as long as the Baratheon,Lannister,Starks,Arryn and Tully alliance held. That’s why Robert had to leave his comfy lifestyle in KL and move to the North to arrange a wedding between his son (Tywin’s grandson and Renly/Stannis nephew) and Eddard’s daughter (A Stark who happens to be Hoster’s granddaughter and Sweet Robin’s cousin). However that was far from ideal. Robert, Eddard and Jon Arryn alliance was an alliance built on friendship and a certain awe towards Robert who was a great warrior. The next generation won’t have that and as we’ve seen with the Vale, blood ties can be overlooked in the times of war. For example how would Lord Robb act if his sister is mistreated by King Joffrey especially if it turns out that his half-brother is actually his cousin and has a claim to the crown?


 Robert Baratheon best chance was to legitimise his rule turning his dynasty from a rule by conquest to a rule by bloodline. That’s what his ancestor did with the Durrandons and that worked out well didn’t it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Anton Martell said:

(I think the Targaryen lineage of Robert might not have been well established for GRRM in AcoK, but that's irrelevant I guess). Nevertheless, the Renly quote isn't that stupid. It shows that what was instrumental in Robert success was strength. People didn't follow him in his rebellion because of lineage, but because he had a just cause, was strong and the other king was mad. The targaryen lineage is just the cherry on top. Otherwise a lot of lords and characters would mention that lineage at some point. Especially to Dany. Loyalist to the king like Barristan would mention it if it mattered that much...

No, it doesn't work that way. Not in feudal monarchy like Westeros. Robert was strong (and could make use of his strength in a political way) because he was a great lord and cousin to the royal family in the beginning, not the other way around. If Robert hadn't been a cousin to the Targaryens through the female line then the rebels would have offered the crown to such a cousin. Robert would not have been able to take it.

It is the strength of Robert's legal claim that makes him king in the end instead of Jon Arryn or Eddard Stark.

Some landed knight or petty lord with Robert's strength and charisma would never have become king in this society.

5 hours ago, Anton Martell said:

I do not agree with that. There is a very strong feeling for the lords of the Vale linked to House Arryn, regardless of who is the lord (hence why Robert Arryn rule is not disputed, and some are very loyal to him). i also have the impression that people from the Vale see each other as a somewhat separate entity (like the North/Dorne etc.)

They certainly consider themselves Valemen and all. Loyalty to your betters and the custom of primogeniture is very much ingrained in those people. But this doesn't mean they are patriots or loving their region as some kind of special place that is better than the others.

5 hours ago, Anton Martell said:

 Also, in Arys Oakheart POV he talks about belonging to the Reach and what it means for him to be in Dorne (and since House Oakheart si super far from Dorne, it's not as if he were a March lord). I think the people of the Westerlands have been loyal to the lannister for a long time (and the rains of castamere dismissed any doubt for sure).

The Oakheart thing is a hint that people in the border regions and the entire Reach have issues with the Dornishmen. That is no surprise if you check the history. The Dornish once even raided Highgarden and cut the hallowed Living Throne of the Gardener Kings to pieces.

5 hours ago, Anton Martell said:

You can sometime not like a high lord (like Stannis), but then you chose someone from the same family, which again proves a loyalty to the High house.

The Stormlords just stuck to the liege lord the king had put above them - Renly, in this case. 

5 hours ago, Anton Martell said:

I think saying there is no local patriotism other than in Dorne/The North (where it's surely way more important) is incorrect.

When I talk about patriotism then I'm talking about a broader movement. The Dornishmen (and the Northmen to a lesser degree) identify with their rulers to a deeper level and see them and themselves as a sort of unity. They are a proto-nation of sorts. Dornish peasants do care who the hell is ruling over them and take up arms if the Targaryens are invading their lands. But in the middle ages the smallfolk didn't give a damn whether a 'fellow countryman' was ruling over them or not. They had to obey regardless who the guy was who gave them commands.

Patriotism is a very new development, something that grew out of the fact that the commoners dared to presume they and their opinion mattered in the grand scheme of things. In Westeros the smallfolk has no say in the matter who the hell rules the land they are sitting on. It could be some noble lord from their region, or from somewhere else, or from pretty far away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 23 août 2016 at 3:16 AM, devilish said:

Lets do a resume of things. King Robert holds control over the Crownlands and the Stormlands so if he goes to war then the majority of the houses residing there will join him. Stannis is Lord of dragonstone so he will join him too. Eddard is Robert’s best mate and he’s married to the Tully girl (same as the hand of the king), so the Riverlands and the North will join him too. Lord Arryn is hand of the king so the Vale will join by proxy. Not to forget that Balon went on burning Tywin’s fleet (and making him look like an idiot in the process) which mean that the Westerlands will join the fray. That leads us to two major houses ie the Tyrells and the Martells and a couple of bannermen who might decide to act like jerks. 


Assuming that these houses would overlook the fact that the Greyjoys are simply pirates who want to return to a time of plundering castles and chaos and rebel, how on earth do they hope to survive? Dorne have lost too many soldiers to be relevant in the wars to come. The Tyrells can raise a huge army but it would be hounded from nearly every side (Riverlands, Crownlands, Stormlands, Westerlands). Not to forget that


a-    The Tyrells wealth rest mostly on their fields. Crops and war do not go hand in hand.
b-    It would give the Florents the perfect excuse to push their claim to the Reach. The Tyrells would be fighting the Baratheon King twice (once as oathbreakers). The Florents on the other hand had married the King’s brother, they have marital links with the military arm of Reach and are therefore more reliable


So in few words, Balon’s plan was stupid and there’s nothing to underestimate there. Its like Cuba deciding to invade the US because most of the US citizens are torn between Clinton and Trump. 


Assuming no dragons were involved, Robert and his offspring would have remained in command as long as the Baratheon,Lannister,Starks,Arryn and Tully alliance held. That’s why Robert had to leave his comfy lifestyle in KL and move to the North to arrange a wedding between his son (Tywin’s grandson and Renly/Stannis nephew) and Eddard’s daughter (A Stark who happens to be Hoster’s granddaughter and Sweet Robin’s cousin). However that was far from ideal. Robert, Eddard and Jon Arryn alliance was an alliance built on friendship and a certain awe towards Robert who was a great warrior. The next generation won’t have that and as we’ve seen with the Vale, blood ties can be overlooked in the times of war. For example how would Lord Robb act if his sister is mistreated by King Joffrey especially if it turns out that his half-brother is actually his cousin and has a claim to the crown?


 Robert Baratheon best chance was to legitimise his rule turning his dynasty from a rule by conquest to a rule by bloodline. That’s what his ancestor did with the Durrandons and that worked out well didn’t it?

Yeah, Balon plan is dumb. But it's easy to say with hindsight. He made a bet that lords would not be loyal, and yet they were. That proves my point: Robert's hold was stronger than some thought and the realm wasn't on shaky grounds :). You assume that Robert came to the North to make a wedding pact. But the idea came from Catelyn, not Robert if I recall. And he went north to see Ned and ask him to be his Hand, not to marry Joff and Sansa, that could have been done with a couple of ravens if it had been his idea. 

 

As for the fact that all would have turned to shit after his death: maybe, but how could he know that Joff would be a monster. That's incidental and depends on personalities, not on the choice made by Robert/Ned. 

On 23 août 2016 at 6:46 AM, Lord Varys said:

No, it doesn't work that way. Not in feudal monarchy like Westeros. Robert was strong (and could make use of his strength in a political way) because he was a great lord and cousin to the royal family in the beginning, not the other way around. If Robert hadn't been a cousin to the Targaryens through the female line then the rebels would have offered the crown to such a cousin. Robert would not have been able to take it.

It is the strength of Robert's legal claim that makes him king in the end instead of Jon Arryn or Eddard Stark.

Some landed knight or petty lord with Robert's strength and charisma would never have become king in this society.

They certainly consider themselves Valemen and all. Loyalty to your betters and the custom of primogeniture is very much ingrained in those people. But this doesn't mean they are patriots or loving their region as some kind of special place that is better than the others.

The Oakheart thing is a hint that people in the border regions and the entire Reach have issues with the Dornishmen. That is no surprise if you check the history. The Dornish once even raided Highgarden and cut the hallowed Living Throne of the Gardener Kings to pieces.

The Stormlords just stuck to the liege lord the king had put above them - Renly, in this case. 

When I talk about patriotism then I'm talking about a broader movement. The Dornishmen (and the Northmen to a lesser degree) identify with their rulers to a deeper level and see them and themselves as a sort of unity. They are a proto-nation of sorts. Dornish peasants do care who the hell is ruling over them and take up arms if the Targaryens are invading their lands. But in the middle ages the smallfolk didn't give a damn whether a 'fellow countryman' was ruling over them or not. They had to obey regardless who the guy was who gave them commands.

Patriotism is a very new development, something that grew out of the fact that the commoners dared to presume they and their opinion mattered in the grand scheme of things. In Westeros the smallfolk has no say in the matter who the hell rules the land they are sitting on. It could be some noble lord from their region, or from somewhere else, or from pretty far away.

In a feudal society, strength matters. Kings can be crowned, but plotting will come afterwards to remove them. A weak king can see his reign end, or his territory be swallowed by enemies. I do not agree about your justification through the Targaryens rule. I really believed it was a way to justify it in some way, but afterwards. Basically people agreed to remove Aerys, Robert was the leader of it, and then people said: oh yeah, and he is a Targ, so it's okay. This kind of bullshit happened in many culture when you justify a new leader through some lineage so that's it kosher (Like roman emperors saying they descend from some guy), but everybody knows it's just an excuse to try to not show the ugly truth: a guy was stronger and now he leads because of it. Strength is one of the source of feudal society. When you are somehow weak, people rebel. Look at how Orys Baratheon became lord of the Stormlands, same with the Tyrells: Aegon who had strength established them as leaders. that's why they rule. And after they use lineage to keep it, but at the start of it all, several kings were removed and replaced with strength. Look at Aegon: he was a foreigner and yet he became king: because he had strength. 

 

I want to make one thing clear: I'm not saying blood ties don't matter. heck they matter a lot with the need to legitimate heirs, battle over claims etc. And in a normal setting I believe being a Targ would be essential. But Aerys' situation was not a normal setting. They removed him because he was awful. And once that's done, you need someone in charge. Robert was the leader of the rebellion, and people looked for a reason to justify him taking the crown. That's when the Targ lineage would have come handy. Without it, they would have tried to come back to an ancestor or something. 

 

We probably will never agree, but that's because you believe that Targ lineage has that much of a great importance, and I don't. I respect that, and I might be wrong, but I still believe that. 


As for the "patriotism": you're right, it's a recent notion, but most regions in westeros would have some trouble to follow someone not from the region in some way. The only way to contradict that would be with strength (see above :p). But it's the same reason people invoke lineage: you need to find a reason to follow a guy, and you need to hide in someway the fact that this reason is basically: the guy could kill me.

 

As for the Vale etc. I don't think we know enough about it to know wether they are similar to the North or not, but I believe they and the Westerland have some kind of proto-nation as well. The Iron Islands have it at least. So you get out of 7 kingdom three were a strong belief of difference exists for sure (Iron Islands, North and Dorne) and some where we don't really know. Since they were originally seven kingdom, I believe they see themselves as very distinct and they feel a connection with their land and fellow Vale/reach/stormlands habitants. Heck, in medieval time, there was "national" feelings of some sort in some region (the south of france for example). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 11/09/2016 at 10:35 AM, Anton Martell said:

Yeah, Balon plan is dumb. But it's easy to say with hindsight. He made a bet that lords would not be loyal, and yet they were. That proves my point: Robert's hold was stronger than some thought and the realm wasn't on shaky grounds :). You assume that Robert came to the North to make a wedding pact. But the idea came from Catelyn, not Robert if I recall. And he went north to see Ned and ask him to be his Hand, not to marry Joff and Sansa, that could have been done with a couple of ravens if it had been his idea. 

 

As for the fact that all would have turned to shit after his death: maybe, but how could he know that Joff would be a monster. That's incidental and depends on personalities, not on the choice made by Robert/Ned. 

 

The only one who thought that Robert's alliance couldn't hold was Balon. Even the Martells who had a massive axe to grind against Robert or the Tyrells who were piggy banking the crown without ever taking anything in exchange stirred away from rebelling. Robert had the Westerlands, the North, the Crownlands, the Stormlands, Dragonstone, the Vale and the Riverlands firmly in his hands. This leaves us to a pack of pirates, a heavily surrounded Reach who depended on its fields to survive and a weakened Dorne who was still licking its wounds. Surely you don't need to be Napoleon Bonaparte or Genghis Khan to acknowledge that a rebellion at that point would be stupid. 

I don't recall that Cat was the one suggesting a marriage between Joffrey and Sansa. I also think that a marriage matchup between the crown prince and the daughter of a Lord Paramount, the granddaughter of another Lord Paramount and the cousin of yet another Lord Paramount need much more tact and negotiation then giving a Lord Paramount a promotion. So many things could be taken out of contest. For example what if Ned had already promised Sansa to another? Would that be interpreted as the King micromanaging his Lord Paramount? Dont forget that

a- Sansa's Uncle had met his premature death and the first thing her Aunt did was to barricade herself at the Vale. Ned can look after himself but what about Sansa?
b- The North is quite proud. If Ned had promised Sansa to somebody (let say Roose) then he will put him into one hell of a situation. Its better off for the King to be there and sort things out quickly before any misinterpretation ends up into a diplomatic incident
c- Ned is a family man. He may not give his consent to ship off his daughter to  marry someone he hasn't even met. 

Not to forget that marriage matchups are far more lethal then promotions. Lyanna's kidnapping caused the rebellion and Aerys reluctance to have Rhaegar marrying Cersei translated in him losing the Westerlands and the crown 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...