Jump to content

What if Robert found about R+L=Jon Snow?


TheDemonicStark

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Laughing Storm Reborn said:

 i'm not disputing bob's lack of moral fortitude, that said ned does not believe he would hurt any of his blood (catelyn II), dany and vys would die if bob truly wanted it, jon arryn couldn't do jack, and dany's agot hunt order is justified in a protector of the realm pov imo

It's Bob's lack of moral fortitude that concerns me. If he'd said 'Ned, this episode with the direwolf has made it clear that they are dangerous beasts. I will not have them in the capital' then, fair enough. I wouldn't like it, but I'd understand it. Bob killing it (or rather having it killed) because his wife demands it is just weak. And Ned might have believed that Ned would never harm his family, but he certainly never tested that theory. A theory that Ned might have been revising after seeing how much Robert still hated Rhaegar and, by extension, Targaryens 15 years after his death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/24/2016 at 9:43 AM, Laughing Storm Reborn said:

Folks do know a direwolf IS a dangerous animal no??

When Robert says to Ned that he should give his kids dogs instead he is being the reasonable one...

We all know that the Starks' direwolves are not dangerous to them and others as long as they aren't threatening the Starks. Robert was not being reasonable he was being a coward. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Laughing Storm Reborn said:

 

- i'm not disputing bob's lack of moral fortitude, that said ned does not believe he would hurt any of his blood (catelyn II), dany and vys would die if bob truly wanted it, jon arryn couldn't do jack, and dany's agot hunt order is justified in a protector of the realm pov imo

The bolded is an absolute contradiction to everything Ned has been doing for 15yrs. 

I don't know WTF Ned was thinking when he said that, but Ned spent 15yrs protecting his "blood" from Robert. Starting with Jon, Catelyn and his other children. He was so scared about Jon being found out that he shuts up any talk of his mother before that conversation starts. 

Ned is very uncomfortable when Robert expresses his Targ hate. I don't believe for a second that he wasn't concerned about Robert hurting his "blood" Ned was in denial. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 25/10/2016 at 5:52 PM, WSmith84 said:

It's Bob's lack of moral fortitude that concerns me. If he'd said 'Ned, this episode with the direwolf has made it clear that they are dangerous beasts. I will not have them in the capital' then, fair enough. I wouldn't like it, but I'd understand it. Bob killing it (or rather having it killed) because his wife demands it is just weak. And Ned might have believed that Ned would never harm his family, but he certainly never tested that theory. A theory that Ned might have been revising after seeing how much Robert still hated Rhaegar and, by extension, Targaryens 15 years after his death.

We do not disagree on his moral weaknesses or that the lady incident was just out of rambling-escape (there's a video of grrm explaining the situation, he gives the idea of understanding folks like bob who cannot stand moral discussions and if killing an animal ends it so be it), my point was only that it does not make him evil or indicates a baby jon killing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 25/10/2016 at 6:38 PM, The Wolves said:

We all know that the Starks' direwolves are not dangerous to them and others as long as they aren't threatening the Starks. Robert was not being reasonable he was being a coward. 

We the readers know, because we are omnipotent to the story.

To the normal mind a wild animal is what it is, giant wolves are a threat to cadle and people, in the pups chapter even northeners argue about that...

It's a little disneyish having giant wolves or dragons who don't make a deadly mess, they are carnivorous and if angry by whatever reason, they kill... Humans come first and the risk of them killibg one is very high if unchecked (the starks cannot watch them every second).

Bob is reasonable when he says a dog is a pet, not a giant wolf...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Laughing Storm Reborn said:

We the readers know, because we are omnipotent to the story.

To the normal mind a wild animal is what it is, giant wolves are a threat to cadle and people, in the pups chapter even northeners argue about that...

It's a little disneyish having giant wolves or dragons who don't make a deadly mess, they are carnivorous and if angry by whatever reason, they kill... Humans come first and the risk of them killibg one is very high if unchecked (the starks cannot watch them every second).

Bob is reasonable when he says a dog is a pet, not a giant wolf...

Robert was using it as an excuse to be a little bitch, he wasn't being reasonable. Ned trusted those wolves not to hurt his children and they never did. Robert even knew that Joffery was lying and knew why Nymeria attacked him yet he had a innocent animal murdered because of his cowardice. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, The Wolves said:

Robert was using it as an excuse to be a little bitch, he wasn't being reasonable. Ned trusted those wolves not to hurt his children and they never did. Robert even knew that Joffery was lying and knew why Nymeria attacked him yet he had a innocent animal murdered because of his cowardice. 

Agree 100%!  The wolves were like bodyguards.  The worst of it is Ned was complicit in Robert's crime, essentially being coerced by his 'brother' to kill Lady himself.  Subsequently, Ned justified his part in Lady's murder as his ensuring Lady would have an 'honorable' death, ostensibly saving her from a common executioner.  The sad irony is Ned, through his own cowardice, played the part of that 'common executioner' and violated his own child in the process (Sansa is still suffering the repercussions thereof). There was nothing honorable in how either he or Robert acted.

3 hours ago, Laughing Storm Reborn said:

folks like bob who cannot stand moral discussions and if killing an animal ends it so be it), my point was only that it does not make him evil or indicates a baby jon killing

Sometimes evil is 'banal' -- a crime of omission rather than commission.  Robert Baratheon's consistent passivity in the face of evil, specifically his refusal to stand up to vicious tyrants, allowing them loose on the population without check, is at the very least dangerous and at the worst evil (I don't believe he went to war against Aerys/Rhaegar motivated by any higher principle than jealousy and wounded pride which got his Baratheon 'fury' all wound up).  

I find it ironic that he was willing to allow such 'human predators' -- Tywin Lannister, Gregor Clegane, Amory Lorch, Cersei Lannister, Joffrey Lannister, to name but a few -- to run around terrorising innocents and children unchecked, while he was so keen to kill a pet wolf who had done nothing.  Remember, Lady was the most good-natured and gentle of the wolves.  She had never bitten anyone.  Lady was an innocent bystander, and did not deserve to die, regardless of what you think about Sansa's part in the whole episode.  He simply had her killed out of convenience, with a bored and irritable shrug of the shoulders and a stubborn, deadpan expression in his eyes, because he didn't feel like resisting Cersei or disciplining his son, whom he later reveals he suspected all along of lying, having witnessed his duplicitous and cruel behavior (for example his vivisection and evisceration of a pregnant cat) on previous occasions. 

This is Robert, in a rare moment of honesty, confessing he's sorry about having killed the wolf:

Quote

AGOT-Eddard VII

He took the horn, upended it, belched, wiped his mouth. "I am sorry for your girl, Ned. Truly. About the wolf, I mean. My son was lying, I'd stake my soul on it. My son . . . you love your children, don't you?"

"With all my heart," Ned said.

 "Let me tell you a secret, Ned. More than once, I have dreamed of giving up the crown. Take ship for the Free Cities with my horse and my hammer, spend my time warring and whoring, that's what I was made for. The sellsword king, how the singers would love me. You know what stops me? The thought of Joffrey on the throne, with Cersei standing behind him whispering in his ear. My son. How could I have made a son like that, Ned?"

"He's only a boy," Ned said awkwardly. He had small liking for Prince Joffrey, but he could hear the pain in Robert's voice. "Have you forgotten how wild you were at his age?"

 

"It would not trouble me if the boy was wild, Ned. You don't know him as I do." He sighed and shook his head. "Ah, perhaps you are right. Jon despaired of me often enough, yet I grew into a good king." Robert looked at Ned and scowled at his silence. "You might speak up and agree now, you know."

"Your Grace . . . " Ned began, carefully.

 

Robert slapped Ned on the back. "Ah, say that I'm a better king than Aerys and be done with it.

 

1 hour ago, Laughing Storm Reborn said:

It's a little disneyish having giant wolves or dragons who don't make a deadly mess, they are carnivorous and if angry by whatever reason, they kill... Humans come first and the risk of them killibg one is very high if unchecked (the starks cannot watch them every second).

Bob is reasonable when he says a dog is a pet, not a giant wolf...

No, he's not being reasonable.  He's justifying his lack of leadership and parenting after the fact.

Also, you can't read this story on a purely literal level, discounting the symbolism.  The wolves are extensions of the Starks, so when someone harms them you should read that as being tantamount to aggression towards the Starks themselves (e.g. when Frey locks up and slaughters Grey Wind at the Red Wedding, this is a mirror of his intentions towards Robb, which Grey Wind was right in sensing when he balked in the middle of the bridge).  That's why the image of the dead direwolf in the snow having been gored by the deer antler is more than just passing natural curiosity.  It foreshadows Robert Baratheon harming a lot of Starks, wolves and humans alike, as a result of both his actions and inactions.  

The flipside of Robert's false coin is Ned, who similarly is cowardly and passive when it comes to standing up to people, especially Robert.  That's the reason Robert selected Ned as Hand instead of his brother Stannis who would've been far more effective in reigning in Robert.  As many on this thread have observed, Robert's primary motivation was preserving his ease, regardless of whom he had to sacrifice in order to attain this goal.  He selected Ned, because he needed a pushover, not someone who would prioritize justice and push back against him.  

Stannis would've been the rational choice, had Robert been rational.  But Robert used emotion rather than reason in all of his choices.  He is many things, but not reasonable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 26/10/2016 at 11:01 PM, ravenous reader said:

Agree 100%!  The wolves were like bodyguards.  The worst of it is Ned was complicit in Robert's crime, essentially being coerced by his 'brother' to kill Lady himself.  Subsequently, Ned justified his part in Lady's murder as his ensuring Lady would have an 'honorable' death, ostensibly saving her from a common executioner.  The sad irony is Ned, through his own cowardice, played the part of that 'common executioner' and violated his own child in the process (Sansa is still suffering the repercussions thereof). There was nothing honorable in how either he or Robert acted.

Sometimes evil is 'banal' -- a crime of omission rather than commission.  Robert Baratheon's consistent passivity in the face of evil, specifically his refusal to stand up to vicious tyrants, allowing them loose on the population without check, is at the very least dangerous and at the worst evil (I don't believe he went to war against Aerys/Rhaegar motivated by any higher principle than jealousy and wounded pride which got his Baratheon 'fury' all wound up).  

I find it ironic that he was willing to allow such 'human predators' -- Tywin Lannister, Gregor Clegane, Amory Lorch, Cersei Lannister, Joffrey Lannister, to name but a few -- to run around terrorising innocents and children unchecked, while he was so keen to kill a pet wolf who had done nothing.  Remember, Lady was the most good-natured and gentle of the wolves.  She had never bitten anyone.  Lady was an innocent bystander, and did not deserve to die, regardless of what you think about Sansa's part in the whole episode.  He simply had her killed out of convenience, with a bored and irritable shrug of the shoulders and a stubborn, deadpan expression in his eyes, because he didn't feel like resisting Cersei or disciplining his son, whom he later reveals he suspected all along of lying, having witnessed his duplicitous and cruel behavior (for example his vivisection and evisceration of a pregnant cat) on previous occasions. 

This is Robert, in a rare moment of honesty, confessing he's sorry about having killed the wolf:

 

No, he's not being reasonable.  He's justifying his lack of leadership and parenting after the fact.

Also, you can't read this story on a purely literal level, discounting the symbolism.  The wolves are extensions of the Starks, so when someone harms them you should read that as being tantamount to aggression towards the Starks themselves (e.g. when Frey locks up and slaughters Grey Wind at the Red Wedding, this is a mirror of his intentions towards Robb, which Grey Wind was right in sensing when he balked in the middle of the bridge).  That's why the image of the dead direwolf in the snow having been gored by the deer antler is more than just passing natural curiosity.  It foreshadows Robert Baratheon harming a lot of Starks, wolves and humans alike, as a result of both his actions and inactions.  

The flipside of Robert's false coin is Ned, who similarly is cowardly and passive when it comes to standing up to people, especially Robert.  That's the reason Robert selected Ned as Hand instead of his brother Stannis who would've been far more effective in reigning in Robert.  As many on this thread have observed, Robert's primary motivation was preserving his ease, regardless of whom he had to sacrifice in order to attain this goal.  He selected Ned, because he needed a pushover, not someone who would prioritize justice and push back against him.  

Stannis would've been the rational choice, had Robert been rational.  But Robert used emotion rather than reason in all of his choices.  He is many things, but not reasonable.

We can read a symbolic scene that way and know a deer did not attack a direwolf, but a direwolf hunted down a deer for food and the deer defended himself, what can we take of it? That ned used robert for his families revenge on the targs? for his lannister wars?

We can read it both ways, it's symbolic but it's not reality, bob does not or ever wanted to hurt his best friend who says more than once in the text robert is MORE THAN A BROTHER to him ( yes, brandon, ben or lyanna)...

I find him very reasonable, he is sorry because he knows sansa loved the wolf but nevertheless giant wolves are not pets... To him and to me, now it's a matter of opinion if folks think a stark could prevent a direwolf from destroying a life even by accident in the capital.

And yes i do know and acknowledge bob's lack of moral fortitude, grrm already explained the lady incident on video and he speaks of robert's weaknesses and comprehends them very well, no one is perfect in this story.

Agree, stannis is robert's weak spot, because he knows what stan does not, that his younger brother is stronger mentally

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Laughing Storm Reborn said:

bob does not or ever wanted to hurt his best friend who says more than once in the text robert is MORE THAN A BROTHER to him

'More than a brother' is not always a beneficial sign...For example, Cat remarks that Littlefinger felt 'more than brotherly' towards her -- and then went on to destroy her and her entire family on both sides (Tully and Stark).  

Perhaps Robert did not intend to hurt Ned; however, he was more than willing to hurt him if that was the necessary price he had to pay to preserve his own comfort.  There's a subtle difference between actively going out to hurt someone and relishing it (as Tywin does) and 'turning a blind eye' to the hurtful consequences of ones actions while acting in 'bad faith' (as Robert does)-- Tywin's a sadist; Robert's a coward -- however, both exhibit callousness towards others.

As many have observed, Robert valued his ease and avoidance of stress more than anything else, including upholding 'nebulous' values like loyalty and friendship.  When friendship was 'too hard', he was willing to put a symbolic antler in his friend's neck.

2 hours ago, Laughing Storm Reborn said:

I find him very reasonable, he is sorry because he knows sansa loved the wolf but nevertheless giant wolves are not pets... To him and to me, now it's a matter of opinion if folks think a stark could prevent a direwolf from destroying a life even by accident in the capital.

I'm not sure why you're buying into Robert's lame excuses.  Robert must really appeal to you a lot as a character in order for you to defend him so faithfully, whereas I find him odious!  

Had Robert really been so concerned about wild animals in the court, he could have prevented the direwolves from accompanying them to Kings Landing in the first place.  He's the king.  He has the final say as to who accompanies him as part of his retinue and how his court is organized.  However, he only started caring about  the potential dangers of wolves when Cersei started nagging.  All she had to do was shame him publicly, poke here, poke there, and -- hey presto -- he was emasculated!  Suddenly he's committed to the welfare of Ned's kids...hmmm.  

In order to get Cersei off his back, he went along with her 'brilliant solution' to the problem.  This involved not only killing a wolf who had not been involved in the incident nor ever bitten anyone in her life, it involved the sanctioned hunting-down and murder of a child in the name of spineless King Robert.  Perhaps you don't care that much about Lady because she's 'just a wolf' and it's 'all very reasonable' to kill wild animals to keep the peace at court, but surely you're not going to defend Robert when it comes to what he allowed to happen to Mycah?  Was Mycah a credible threat to anyone?  He was just a child playing a game at a river.

I also find it ironic that Robert advises Ned as a safety measure to get his daughter a dog, when he's assigned a vicious killer 'dog' to his son, the very same Hound who on the very same day brutally hunts down Mycah as if he's an animal.  Robert treats everything like a sport -- and the death of innocents is not a sport.  He's no better than King Aerys.

2 hours ago, Laughing Storm Reborn said:

stannis is robert's weak spot, because he knows what stan does not, that his younger brother is stronger mentally

I don't understand what you're trying to say here.  Could you please clarify?  My point was that Robert wanted an easy life, so he chose a Hand he knew would be a pushover (Ned) rather than one who would be effective and keep him in line if need be (Stannis). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ravenous reader said:

'More than a brother' is not always a beneficial sign...For example, Cat remarks that Littlefinger felt 'more than brotherly' towards her -- and then went on to destroy her and her entire family on both sides (Tully and Stark).  

Perhaps Robert did not intend to hurt Ned; however, he was more than willing to hurt him if that was the necessary price he had to pay to preserve his own comfort.  There's a subtle difference between actively going out to hurt someone and relishing it (as Tywin does) and 'turning a blind eye' to the hurtful consequences of ones actions while acting in 'bad faith' (as Robert does)-- Tywin's a sadist; Robert's a coward -- however, both exhibit callousness towards others.

As many have observed, Robert valued his ease and avoidance of stress more than anything else, including upholding 'nebulous' values like loyalty and friendship.  When friendship was 'too hard', he was willing to put a symbolic antler in his friend's neck.

I'm not sure why you're buying into Robert's lame excuses.  Robert must really appeal to you a lot as a character in order for you to defend him so faithfully, whereas I find him odious!  

Had Robert really been so concerned about wild animals in the court, he could have prevented the direwolves from accompanying them to Kings Landing in the first place.  He's the king.  He has the final say as to who accompanies him as part of his retinue and how his court is organized.  However, he only started caring about  the potential dangers of wolves when Cersei started nagging.  All she had to do was shame him publicly, poke here, poke there, and -- hey presto -- he was emasculated!  Suddenly he's committed to the welfare of Ned's kids...hmmm.  

In order to get Cersei off his back, he went along with her 'brilliant solution' to the problem.  This involved not only killing a wolf who had not been involved in the incident nor ever bitten anyone in her life, it involved the sanctioned hunting-down and murder of a child in the name of spineless King Robert.  Perhaps you don't care that much about Lady because she's 'just a wolf' and it's 'all very reasonable' to kill wild animals to keep the peace at court, but surely you're not going to defend Robert when it comes to what he allowed to happen to Mycah?  Was Mycah a credible threat to anyone?  He was just a child playing a game at a river.

I also find it ironic that Robert advises Ned as a safety measure to get his daughter a dog, when he's assigned a vicious killer 'dog' to his son, the very same Hound who on the very same day brutally hunts down Mycah as if he's an animal.  Robert treats everything like a sport -- and the death of innocents is not a sport.  He's no better than King Aerys.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here.  Could you please clarify?  My point was that Robert wanted an easy life, so he chose a Hand he knew would be a pushover (Ned) rather than one who would be effective and keep him in line if need be (Stannis). 

- when ned ( a better person than bob)is imprisioned he tortures himself about failing robert, what he did to ned wasn't half as dangerous than what ned did to him (wich caused BOB's actual death, not a dead direwolf), i defend robert despite knowing his shortcomings ( the author himself considers him a good guy in the baratheon feuturette video) because no one is angelical here, when you compare him to aerys it's just a lost cause for us to argue on robert's human quality, we are on polar opposites on that.

Blaming robert for everything because he's king does not gel for me, the hound killed micah while on pursuit so bob should do this or that, there's plenty of people who can deal with that crime and put the culprit on trial (city watch, master of laws, the hand)ned himself could as hand do something about it as he did to tywin, in bob's know-how micah was a boy involved in the incident who ran from authority and died escaping it, i would make a deal of it, but a king in medieval times or ned for that matter wouldn't, they could care less... ned finds it sad but shrugs it hard... human value was crap back then and animal value didn't even exist

 

What i meant was that bob did not apoint stannis because he knew stannis would not be easy to argue, and yes bob liked "easy to argue" people, one of many shortcomings he, and a ton of others have.... but he is not nearly aerys or tywin, even the author knows and shows us in video inteviews, ssm's and the books themselves

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Laughing Storm Reborn said:

- when ned is imprisioned he tortures himself about failing robert, what he did to ned wasn't half as dangerous than what ned did to him (wich caused BOB's actual death, not a dead direwolf),

That's always been a mystery.  What do you think Ned meant by that?  How exactly did he fail Robert or bring about his death?  What should he have done differently? @sweetsunray has argued that the plot to kill Robert had to already have been in motion before Ned approached Cersei with his 'madness of mercy' offer.

6 minutes ago, Laughing Storm Reborn said:

i defend robert despite knowing his shortcomings ( the author himself considers him a nice guy

The author also thinks that  torturing and killing animals as Joffrey does can be a normal rite of passage of childhood and indicates nothing more serious than a bit of 'bullying.'  GRRM tends to minimize these things.  Doesn't mean I have to.

6 minutes ago, Laughing Storm Reborn said:

Blaming robert for everything because he's king does not gel for me, the hound killed micah while on pursuit so bob should do this or that, there's plenty of people who can deal with that crime and put the culprit on trial (city watch, master of laws, the hand, etc) a king is not omnipotent nor needs to deal with every crime on a 200 million folk westeros, ned himself could as hand do something about it as he did to tywin.

Robert is ultimately responsible for setting the tone of leadership in the realm, and that begins with not tolerating injustice under his watch.  Why did the Hound go after Mycah, if not with the King's tacit approval?

6 minutes ago, Laughing Storm Reborn said:

What i meant was that bob did not apoint stannis because he knew stannis would not be easy to argue, and yes bob liked "easy to argue" people, one of many shortcomings he, and a ton of others have.... but he is not nearly aerys or tywin, even the author knows and shows us in video inteviews, ssm's and the books themselves

I agree.  On a scale of depravity, sadism is worse than cowardice.  However, I was trying to make the point that reckless passivity can kill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, John Doe said:

As far as Robert knew Mycah had attacked his son. 

 

 

Robert admits to Ned that Joffery lied. Robert knew that Joffery was lying when it went down so no the excuse that Robert knew that Mycah attacked his son is ridiculous. 

Robert is also to blame for Mycah, the stupid, weak piece of shyt. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, The Wolves said:

Robert admits to Ned that Joffery lied. Robert knew that Joffery was lying when it went down so no the excuse that Robert knew that Mycah attacked his son is also some bullshit to the highest. 

Robert is also to blame for Mycah, the stupid, weak piece of shyt. 

And Eddard later executed his daughters wolf after selling her like cattle. That stupid, weak piece of shyt. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, John Doe said:

And Eddard later executed his daughters wolf after selling her like cattle. That stupid, weak piece of shyt. 

 

I wasn't talking about Ned, I was talking about Robert and his inability to be anything but a little bitch when faced with moral choices. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Robert knew more about his kingdom then Ned did. He knew that he was living inside old Tywin's pockets and that one false step would cost him his life and he lived his life enough not to test the waters. You don't need to be a genius to acknowledge that. His finest KG was a Lannister, his maester was on Lannister's payroll, he shared a bed with a Lannister, his children were more Lannister then Baratheon and his cupbearer was Lannister. A bit of poison and Robert would go to hell with no one to rescue him

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, devilish said:

I think Robert knew more about his kingdom then Ned did. He knew that he was living inside old Tywin's pockets and that one false step would cost him his life and he lived his life enough not to test the waters. You don't need to be a genius to acknowledge that. His finest KG was a Lannister, his maester was on Lannister's payroll, he shared a bed with a Lannister, his children were more Lannister then Baratheon and his cupbearer was Lannister. A bit of poison and Robert would go to hell with no one to rescue him

Why did he let it get that far?  I agree in the end he was cornered -- by his own passivity.  Always giving way to tyrants -- placating and promoting them -- until they surrounded him.  He could have solved this problem with some help, by placating and promoting the person he should have in the first place, namely his underappreciated brother Stannis who would've brought a firm hand to proceedings and ensured a measure of justice.

2 hours ago, BRANDON GREYSTARK said:

noble knights do not kill children , but that would not stop Tywin from trying , and nor would he have punished the Lannisters if they had .

No, he would have promoted them, either by offering them a flashier post or a cushier marriage proposal!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...