Blue roses, Southron Ambitions, and the machinations of a mad king

[TheSeason]

@Macgregor of the North

 

Quote

I feel quite the opposite, with all the information we have on him, quite alot actually, I think this man is driven by Prophecy and has been his whole life since he read those scrolls. His life's work has been trying to understand the Prince that was promised Prophecy and also (possibly stupidly) trying to force it to come true through himself and his children, and his actions in the story reflect this. 

Like I said though guys, we can't all interpret the books the same. It would be boring then.

We are operating on two different wavelengths, then. I don't think we have five hundred words totaled on Rhaegar, and most of it is iffy (for example, Ned's--who did not know Rhaegar at all, and could hardly be called an acquaintance as such--musings that Rhaegar wasn't the type to frequent brothels, or Barristan's stating that Rhaegar read something to change his mind about becoming a tourney knight, but not stating what that was--I disagree that it's safe to presume this was prophecy). We never get to see him in person (barring visions and dreams) let alone have his point of view on anything (nor shall we), and the closest Rhaegar ever comes to speaking for himself is in Jaime's visions/dreams and remembrances (in which he was preoccupied with politics--stating he'd intended to make significant changes--and the safety of his family--"I left my wife and children in your hands"; "I know you Kingslayer. I've been waiting here for you..."). The next closest is the HoTU vision given to Dany (in which he does speak of prophecy), and although I do think this vision is more-or-less "true," I also acknowledge the nature of the source. After that, I suppose there's Aemon, but he is also a bad source. He never met Rhaegar, nor was he Rhaegar's confidante on any matter of import but the PtwP prophecy, so it's impossible to trust his assessment of the man (and even that, he never really gives us). I'd put JonCon ahead of Aemon in this regard, as a better source on Rhaegar's character. Even Robert Baratheon gives us a few hints of what Rhaegar was truly like (in the rare moments he's being honest with himself!), and it seems clear he thought Rhaegar was a loving family man (why he's so obsessed with killing all "dragonspawn" in revenge), which goes hand-in-hand with iffy!source Ned's preoccupation with the safety and security of Rhaegar's children (and siblings) as well, in addition to the thought he'd not frequent brothels.

A long winded way of saying, let's agree to disagree! :-D We clearly weight the sources on Rhaegar's character too differently, and if you are convinced you have enough information to make a stern conclusion, there's nothing I could say to that, eh? Perhaps there's some other topic where we'll be able to meet in the middle. :-}

On ‎2‎/‎1‎/‎2017 at 11:11 PM, SFDanny said:

Cersei thinks she comes up with the plan to put her brother into the Kingsguard, but I've no doubt she is manipulated into playing her part. Yes, I think that means Aerys and Varys know of their incest and use that knowledge to further their own designs. Cersei has been at court with her father for some time, so it is very likely Varys has had his little birds watching her and gathering information. A loose word by anyone in the Lannister contingent would be enough. A maid of Cersei talking of Joanna separating the twins, or Cersei herself saying something she thought clever and hidden but provokes an interest. It could be a lot of things that tip Varys off.

So you think Varys knew all along? Curious. Though, if Aerys knew enough about the incest to use Cersei in this manner, it's had to believe he didn't also use this information to humiliate Tywin and House Lannister and put them down (not because he views incest as bad for himself or House Targaryen, but because he views House Targaryen so far above all others, and because the Faith would not look kindly on it, etc.). It seems the perfect ammunition for him... He was not shy about humiliating Tywin in any other way (even commenting on Joanna's private parts, and "taking liberties" with her during the bedding ceremony, whatever that means). Why do you think he'd keep it quiet?

On ‎2‎/‎1‎/‎2017 at 11:11 PM, SFDanny said:

But look at how close it comes to working! They have reached the point of agreeing to the dowry with the Lannisters and bringing them into their plot, with other shoes to drop. I have to wonder if the attempt to marry the Blackfish to Bethany Redwyne was an early part of this plot, and perhaps the marriage of Stannis to Selyse is planned before the rebellion as well. That would help tie to important families to the plot from the Reach, where Mace has no children of marriageable age? We don't know what is planned for Elbert and Ned, or even young Benjen, Renly, and Edmure. Could the plan include a marriage to Cersei or to one of the Hightower girls? I don't know, but if the marriages are consummated we have a very powerful bloc of families that need to do little than jointly tell the Targaryens to take their oaths of fealty and shove them up where the sun don't shine. At least until they hatch more dragons.

I disagree that it came close to working. Their alliance almost failed even unto the Trident! How is that an almost-successful peaceful coup? If their success at war was so iffy, I cannot say that their previous peaceful attempt that caused the war was almost a success.

About when was the betrothal between Blackfish and Bethany Redwyne arranged? I never considered it a part of the alliance, but it may well have been (the only Tully I like is Edmure. If the Blackfish treated Edmure better, and wasn't so partial to Cat, I might have been able to get behind him... but I've an open mind for the future, he may yet do something to change my opinion on his (lack of) character in the wars to come). That's something to consider.

Also Stannis and Selyse... hmm, the wedding took place several years after Robert's crowning, so I'm not certain about this one. The STABers were very close to implementing their plan at Harrenhal (I think it was to go through as soon as the marriages were completed, meaning after Robert and Lyanna), so while the betrothal might have been on the table then, it's difficult to expect the Florents to contribute much to the overthrow of the Targaryens before they've any real reason to do so (that is, Hoster wouldn't act without certain selfish assurances--a trait he despises in others, such as the Freys!--so why should we expect any other house not to think the same way?). But perhaps it was meant to strengthen the alliance after its success?

As for the others... If anything was already planned for Ned, it would have made a conflict of interest for him when he married Cat, but we hear nothing about any guilty feelings about dishonorably breaking a betrothal to another for the sake of the Tullys. Perhaps there were plans for Elbert, but whatever they were, they were not significant enough to the plot to be mentioned. The same goes for anyone else. As for Renly, if there was a betrothal made before Robert took the throne, why wouldn't that family press their advantage after the fact? It seems there was nothing. The reason these characters (Edmure, Renly, Cersei, possibly Stannis) were not betrothed from early ages the way Martin claims things are done in Songverse, is because the plot required it (Renly had to be free for Marg, Stannis had to marry Selyse, Edmure had to be free for Roslin, Cersei had to be free for Robert). Plot constraints require that the STABers do not utilize every tool in their toolbox, else there are none left for the narrative when needed! So, I do believe the alliance was arranged as simply as we are told it was.

On ‎2‎/‎6‎/‎2017 at 1:21 PM, J. Stargaryen said:

I tend to think they simply wanted to counter-balance the crown's power. But of course such an alliance might naturally result in the type of scenario you suggest.

Fair enough. Leaving a nominal monarch on the throne is as viable an option.

On ‎2‎/‎6‎/‎2017 at 1:21 PM, J. Stargaryen said:

This is another interesting angle. The Mad King was mad, but not necessarily wrong. And perhaps the supposedly honorable Jon Arryn wasn't as innocent and noble as we've been led to believe. Some have even suggested that he was working behind the scenes with Tywin Lannister even prior to the rebellion.

There's a reason they had to give him the moniker "the Mad King," to de-legitimize and undermine all of his rightful suspicions and accusations of treason. The rebels were indeed in the wrong, having started the war despite Aerys II's reign giving them a long peace and prosperity, and even repealing the reforms (Aegon V's) that the High Lords despised in the first place, as well as rejecting Rhaegar's attempts to make a peaceful transition from his erratic father (that of course would have benefitted them anyway, as he would have to thank the lords who aided him to sit the throne). Although we are tempted to think of the Starks as the good guys and protagonists (being our primary povs), the fact is that they are the ones who started these devastating wars we as readers so despise, and always for selfish reasons. It's dissonant from a reader's perspective, but I think it enriches the narrative.

As for Jon Arryn, I have never thought him innocent or noble, though Ned and Robert tried to trick me into thinking of him as the benevolent fatherly figure. I'd never heard the argument that Jon Arryn and Tywin were conspiring together prior to the rebellion/alliance, but I think it might make sense if he were the one involved with Tywin at Duskendale. I have never thought that Rhaegar was conspiring to have his father murdered at Duskendale, but rather that he was Tywin's scapegoat (that is, Aerys was meant to distrust his son) to give Tywin wiggle room to continue his scheming. After all, JonCon tells us Rhaegar was still hopeful about his father's condition even late in the game, and when Rhaegar finally bestirred himself to act (at Harrenhal), his solution was the singularly peaceful option, and, I think, the best hope for the realm. Martin tempts the reader to suspect Rhaegar by leaving his response to Tywin's "we have a better king right here!" unspoken (but that doesn't mean he had none, or even that it was positive and colluding), but I've begun to wonder...:

Barristan went on a single-operative suicide mission to retrieve Aerys from Duskendale, thwarting Tywin's attempt to have him killed. Why would Tywin allow this attempt (even if he suspected it would get Barry and Aerys killed)? I think he was forced. And I think Rhaegar was the one to thwart him, by forcing through this mad last-ditch attempt to save the king from his Hand. Then, of course, the lickspittles would have let Aerys continue to believe that Rhaegar was trying to get him killed, plotting with Tywin, when Rhaegar was the only one who tried to save him. (Above all, Rhaegar fights--and dies--to protect his family, including members he does not get on with or who work against him. I think our introduction to Rhaegar, fighting and dying on the Trident to protect his family from the likes of Robert and Tywin, is meant to be our big takeaway for his character; that, like Ned, he tried to protect those who could not protect themselves--including Aerys. But the message becomes garbled because he failed. Honestly, so does Ned in the end, but we don't blame him for it, the way Rhaegar sometimes get the s--t end of the stick!) If Jon Arryn was indeed involved in Duskendale, that would prove a conclusive bit of information for me (that my interpretation of his character was the right one)! I see him as a very hateful man, and I don't think him all that competent either (he made a mess of "Robert's" reign and after one of the worst wars in Westerosi history we still haven't seen the ish cleaned up!), so it makes my skin crawl whenever he's praised.

On ‎2‎/‎6‎/‎2017 at 1:21 PM, J. Stargaryen said:

I think plans would have changed when Aerys executed Rickard, Brandon, et al., and then called for Ned and Robert's heads. Suddenly instead of a counter-balance to the crown's power, STAB is at war, and fighting for their lives. What is different about the Trident though, is that Rhaegar is leading his father's armies. Maybe STAB had considered the possibility of replacing Aerys with Rhaegar, until the prince joined with his father. It seems unlikely that Robert would have been in favor of this, but cooler heads might have believed it to be an acceptable outcome to the war.

I have to disagree with you here. I don't think Rhaegar was ever a viable option for the STABers, even as a "nominal" king on the Iron Throne. If he was, they should have accepted his invitation for High Council at Harrenhal, seated him on the throne, and then made it clear that their oaths of fealty to him would be very different than those made to Aerys (or whatever) since he could not function as king without their support. But they didn't. They spurned him at Harrenhal (Stark, Tully, Arryn didn't even show up. Baratheon was a "child" lord pawn in the alliance, so even though he showed up, he was of no consequence. Tywin had personal reasons not to attend, but we mustn't forget that he sat aloof the entire war as well, so perhaps he was equally willing to spurn Rhaegar's overtures without certain assurances made--his strategy was to latch as a leech to the winner at the last possible moment, expending no effort or resources himself so as to actually earn the rewards he sought. Of the High Lords, only Mace Tyrell was possibly willing to hear what he had to say, as he was in attendance at the tourney although Aerys II was not expected to attend. Oberyn Martell also attended as his brother's representative, giving Rhaegar his support, although that is, perhaps, less surprising, as his sister would become queen during the transition. After that, Rhaegar had the support of minor lords--likely those Narrow Sea lords he ruled from Dragonstone (but not the crownlands lords ruled by his father), in addition to, perhaps, some of the lords who refused the rebels, like Grafton, Cafferon, Whent, Mooton, etc., some of which were the houses of his friends, but some of which were simply loyal to the crown, so it's impossible to tell whether it was Rhaegar or Aerys II they truly supported.).

[King Ned Stark]

@Macgregor of the North, @SFDanny, you've both given me a lot to think on, which is the reason I started this thread, to get all points of view and see what seems to fit best.  I don't post a lot, and start threads even less, because of time restraints and other obligations I typically can't keep up with savvy posters.  I do enjoy a good debate, and the truth above a theory of my own.

@SFDanny, the link @Lord Wraith provided, specifically that Lyanna warned Rhaegar has made me warm to your theory, mainly because I admit the I look at the north, and in particular the Stark's with rose-colored glasses.  It seems fitting that Martin would use POV to obscure things.  I tend to look at the Starks' through a "Ned Stark" lens, and not all Starks are like Ned, and maybe Martin fooled me on that, or I fooled myself.

[Macgregor of the North]

@TheSeason

Quote

We are operating on two different wavelengths, then

We certainly are, and that's all good, I'm not trying to convince you of anything, you have your angle I have mine and that's all healthy 

[Macgregor of the North]

@King Ned Stark, been a great thread mate!. 

[SFDanny]

17 hours ago, King Ned Stark said:

@Macgregor of the North, @SFDanny, you've both given me a lot to think on, which is the reason I started this thread, to get all points of view and see what seems to fit best.  I don't post a lot, and start threads even less, because of time restraints and other obligations I typically can't keep up with savvy posters.  I do enjoy a good debate, and the truth above a theory of my own.

@SFDanny, the link @Lord Wraith provided, specifically that Lyanna warned Rhaegar has made me warm to your theory, mainly because I admit the I look at the north, and in particular the Stark's with rose-colored glasses.  It seems fitting that Martin would use POV to obscure things.  I tend to look at the Starks' through a "Ned Stark" lens, and not all Starks are like Ned, and maybe Martin fooled me on that, or I fooled myself.

I think we all look at the Starks through rose-colored glasses. They are the heroes of the story, and I must admit to caring a great deal about what happens to them all. Martin's depiction of events at the Red Wedding and at Baelor's steps shock every reader of the series who I know. So it is only natural to see them as the good guys. But what Martin does with all the different POV's is to let us see into so many different perspectives that we are forced to see each character in their own way. Hell, a character who starts out by pushing a seven year old boy out a tower window becomes one of the most interesting and conflicted characters George created. I must admit, I'm glad we don't get a look into the Bolton's minds because I'm not sure if I could recover from either one of them seeing themselves as the hero of their story.

Let me just make this one last point about the Starks. I don't want to convince anyone that the STAB conspiracy doesn't have very, very legitimate reasons for coming into existence. Westeros is populated by very different peoples and cultures, and those people, with the exception of the Dornish, were made to kneel and swear fealty to a new monarchy from a foreign land only through the devastating power of Dragons. As we uncover the plot to do away with the Targaryens, should we not look to the reasons the Starks and all the others have for doing so? I think Martin wants us to consider both sides. To see both views of this history, and to imagine what we would think is the right thing to do. I know if I lived in Martin's fictional land, I would be every bit the rebel it looks to me the Starks are.

That doesn't mean I can ignore the Targaryen view of this struggle. In a world in which Ice Zombies are possibly plotting the extinction of all life, perhaps they have a point about the need for dragons?

[TheSeason]

1 hour ago, SFDanny said:

I think we all look at the Starks through rose-colored glasses. They are the heroes of the story, and I must admit to caring a great deal about what happens to them all. Martin's depiction of events at the Red Wedding and at Baelor's steps shock every reader of the series who I know. So it is only natural to see them as the good guys. But what Martin does with all the different POV's is to let us see into so many different perspectives that we are forced to see each character in their own way. Hell, a character who starts out by pushing a seven year old boy out a tower window becomes one of the most interesting and conflicted characters George created. I must admit, I'm glad we don't get a look into the Bolton's minds because I'm not sure if I could recover from either one of them seeing themselves as the hero of their story.

Let me just make this one last point about the Starks. I don't want to convince anyone that the STAB conspiracy doesn't have very, very legitimate reasons for coming into existence. Westeros is populated by very different peoples and cultures, and those people, with the exception of the Dornish, were made to kneel and swear fealty to a new monarchy from a foreign land only through the devastating power of Dragons. As we uncover the plot to do away with the Targaryens, should we not look to the reasons the Starks and all the others have for doing so? I think Martin wants us to consider both sides. To see both views of this history, and to imagine what we would think is the right thing to do. I know if I lived in Martin's fictional land, I would be every bit the rebel it looks to me the Starks are.

That doesn't mean I can ignore the Targaryen view of this struggle. In a world in which Ice Zombies are possibly plotting the extinction of all life, perhaps they have a point about the need for dragons?

 

Lol. I know I'm very reluctant to take off my Stark winterrose-colored glasses, but I force myself to do it from time to time, for a better perspective on the narrative, for discussion, etc. At least I have to try to stay well-rounded. Although, of course, I really love this current generation of Stark kids, and admire their tenacity and courage in the face of adversity, as well as their refusal to be or remain victimized by their foes... I have to admit to myself that they are not necessarily indicative of their predecessors (personality/morality-wise) nor were their predecessors necessarily the victims these last (two) generations the way they painted themselves in the history books!

I know, I know, probably it seemed like I was on Team Targaryen, right? "The Starks are selfish, treasonous jerks! And their friends and family all suck, too!" I admit, I may not like the Tullys or the Arryns, but the Starks are my boys (and girls)! As for the Targaryens... so far, the only Targ I actually like is Rhaegar, and I really do think he would have been the best thing for the realm, especially given--as I see it, anyway--his "need-based" personality; if his High Lords presented him their problems in a peaceful and reasonable way, I'm sure he would have done his best to satisfy them and build new bridges. Maester Aemon, I love, though I sometimes don't count him as a "member" of House Targaryen, if you know what I mean--his blood runs black now. Viserys, now, I wish we got to know him a little better. He was a really interesting character, and it sucks that we only got to see half of his personality for the sake of Dany's arc. I think there was so much more to him that we only get faint glimpses of, and it kind of irritates me. Aegon VI/Young Griff (not a Targ, but a Blackfyre, I think) we don't know enough about yet for me to like him. And I am no Dany fan, although I really enjoyed her arc in Game; when we started seeing more of her, I saw more and more I didn't like. Aerys II could have been an interesting character, though. That might've been fun, to see more of him.

Anyway, I'm not certain how much I think the Targs are foreigners as you claim above. How many generations lived and died on Dragonstone before Aegon, Visenya and Rhaenys mounted their campaign? They were Westerosi too. They'd lived their entire lives on Dragonstone, they had relations on the mainland, and they even "assimilated" even further (converted, really, there was nothing for them to assimilate to or from). So, really, the Targs were Westerosi taking part in the ancient Westerosi tradition of kingdom-building at the expense of the neighboring kings. They just managed it better than the others ever did.

That said... I hate the dragons. I want them all to die. They have yet to contribute anything--in-world or narratively. Dany has been playing the game on cheat-mode because of her dragons (just like the early Targs), and it appears she will continue to do so. The second Dance just seems like it's going to be another wasteful delay (I want to get to the Others, already). And I'm not hopeful that the dragons will ever contribute anything positive to the narrative (most people read the Song of Ice and Fire as "Ice vs. Fire" but I see it as Ice and Fire vs. Mankind (with Dany and/or her dragons closing the pincer on Westeros with the Others coming from the North). So the way I see it, Westeros and Essos (and even the slavers on SB) have very good reason to want those stupid things dead. No one deserves dragons. No one should have that "power up" or "easy cheat" over others. And the power imbalance never brings anything good either.

But the same is rightly said of the feudal high lords and their right to call up armies! Suddenly the high lords feel a fraction of a fraction of the powerlessness their vassals feel, and what do they do? Call up more powerless masses to fight and die for their "rights" to abuse those powerless masses however and whenever they see fit. Hmm. Cry me a river. Aerys II and Tywin Lannister had already repealed the (very good!) reforms to empower the smallfolk to satisfy the high lords' whining. They had already gotten what they wanted. Pressing further is just unreasonable. What we see here is that the king and his administration had brought peace and prosperity to the realm, respected the complaints of his high lords and responded promptly to reinstate whatever rights had been restricted, causing the uproar, only for those covetous high lords to decide this respectful, reasonable monarch/administration had not done enough. Really, he should have bent over for them and removed the crown from his head, begging their apology that he ever dared to call himself king and required them to uphold their oaths of fealty...

It's okay if the STABers were the bad guys for the sake of their wholly selfish ambitions. Why are they entitled to be remembered as the good guys? The Targs had been ruling Westeros for almost three hundred years already, and they were Westerosi too by the time their monarchy was established. And just as their crown came from the right of conquest... so did the Starks', the Arryns', the Lannisters'! And the Tullys and Baratheons were LPs by right of conquest (and by the grace of the Targs) too. We're tempted to think of the Starks as the good guys and the Boltons as the bad guys for betraying them... but we can put them into similar positions here as the Starks and Targs. If the Stark ambitions are fit enough reason to overthrow the Targs after many generations of professing fealty, surely the Bolton ambitions are good enough reason for them to plot to overthrow the Starks? Long ago, the Boltons were kings in their own right, and then the Starks invaded their lands and cast them down and "forced" them to make oaths of fealty. Was it wrong for them to take the opportunity presented them to be rid of House Stark, their unwanted overlords, and take back (at least) what was rightfully theirs and claim the spoils of the North by right of conquest, too?

[The Commentator]

On 1/27/2017 at 10:42 AM, Macgregor of the North said:

Do you mean that Rhaegar actions (crowning Lyanna), was designed to lessen the bond between Stark and Baratheon?.

Perhaps it was a move to prevent the joining of the two houses most likely to rebel.  A risky thing like rebellion would need be sealed with a marriage alliance before each family will stick its neck out for the other.  Rhaegar breaking up that plan would help secure his family's continue rule.

[Chaircat Meow]

On the purpose of STAB, I had never considered it was an alliance formed to break up the seven kingdoms. That's a good theory, but it is a problem that the rebels did not go onto bring this about after they won. My view is that STAB was an alliance designed to rid Westeros of the Targaryen dynasty, and put a new Stark-Baratheon dynasty in their place.

I think we have good reason to believe the alliance wanted the Targaryens eliminated because of the maesters' involvement (which Dustin clues us in on). The Targaryens are a magical dynasty, and periodically get ideas about fire magic and reviving dragons. The Citadel wants this sort of thing stopped, and even if Robert had Targaryen blood he would be unlikely to pass down to his successors any Targaryen family lore/interest or in prophecy or magic, as the Targaryens seems to have done.

I am also struck by something Griff says. He recalls that he knew (i.e. at the time) just before the Battle of the Bells that Robert's head on a spike would have ended the rebellion. At the time Robert had no army with him, and was the weakest rebel lord fighting against Aerys. GrrM told us Robert did not actually declare for the kingship until around the time of the Trident, but here we have JonCon assuming Robert's death ends the rebellion much before. The best explanation for this is that the king and his advisors knew that Jon Arryn and Rickard Stark intended Robert as an alternative king, and were plotting in his favour, even if they had not made their plans public. Hence the assumption that his death ends the revolt.

If the rebels wanted an alternative king Robert is the obvious choice. He has the best claim, and along with Brandon he is the only rebel lord to marry into the family of another major rebel. And I think the Starks are regarded as a much more powerful house than the Tullys, who could not control their bannermen during the rebellion. We also know, from the woiaf, that the Starks believe the Targaryens owe them a royal marriage, which was never produced. That bit of family history could have played some role in firing Rickard's ambitions.

 

 

 

[Macgregor of the North]

On 10/02/2017 at 8:50 PM, Widowmaker 811 said:

Perhaps it was a move to prevent the joining of the two houses most likely to rebel.  A risky thing like rebellion would need be sealed with a marriage alliance before each family will stick its neck out for the other.  Rhaegar breaking up that plan would help secure his family's continue rule.

Thing is there's months before Rhaegar sees Lyanna again, by that time the marriages can have been done and dusted and consummated by then and a force could be preparing to march on KL if the rebels had that in mind. 

I personally think Rhaegar using the crowning as a political message to stop marriages going ahead is weak as it can just as easily push the hot headed Robert and Brandon to wife their betrotheds weeks after the Tourney as a message back instead of warning them away from any lofty ideas against Targaryen rule. 

[SFDanny]

13 hours ago, Chaircat Meow said:

On the purpose of STAB, I had never considered it was an alliance formed to break up the seven kingdoms. That's a good theory, but it is a problem that the rebels did not go onto bring this about after they won. My view is that STAB was an alliance designed to rid Westeros of the Targaryen dynasty, and put a new Stark-Baratheon dynasty in their place.

The evidence of a pre-rebellion goal of putting Robert on the throne is decidedly against it.We have the author's own words telling us that the rebels do not announce Robert's claim to the throne until around the time of the Trident, and, more importantly, we have direct evidence in the books that the decision was between Robert, Ned, and Jon Arryn. That tells us that it wasn't a decision made before Rickard and Brandon's deaths. It tells us that the decision to make a claim for Robert to be the new King in Westeros was made during the rebellion, not before it. It tells us it wasn't the decision of the STAB alliance as it was forming in the pre-rebellion days. We are left to wonder what was the aim of the alliance after getting rid of the Targaryens - which, I agree, all evidence points to that being their first objective. If they aim to claim the Iron Throne in the pre-rebellion days, it isn't with Robert's claim.

So, what then was the unifying goal for a post Targaryen era that bound the STAB alliance together? And, perhaps more importantly, what was the goal that bound Lord Tywin Lannister to the alliance? Do you think Tywin was on the verge of joining the alliance through the marriage of his heir Jaime to the second daughter of Hoster Tully, because he wanted Rickard Stark to become the new King of Westeros? I think not. Or do you think the STAB alliance all of the sudden decided to offer Tywin the throne? Again, I think not. Yet they almost came to agreement for House Lannister to join. One has to explain how that happened.

Now, why was the goal of the alliance different in the pre-rebellion days from what it becomes during the rebellion? Because circumstances change and force the rebels to change their goals with them. The rebellion is fought with four High Lords as the leadership of the rebellion - with the Tullys joining late. Why then should the victorious rebels leave the look of the future of Westeros to include those who fought against them? Or those who waited until the last minute to join the rebellion, as was the case with the Lannisters and the Greyjoys. I'd say there is every reason to, under those circumstances for the victorious rebels to dictate that the Houses that fought the rebellion will decide the make up of the future, and they will make sure they control it.

[Chaircat Meow]

5 hours ago, SFDanny said:

The evidence of a pre-rebellion goal of putting Robert on the throne is decidedly against it.We have the author's own words telling us that the rebels do not announce Robert's claim to the throne until around the time of the Trident, and, more importantly, we have direct evidence in the books that the decision was between Robert, Ned, and Jon Arryn. That tells us that it wasn't a decision made before Rickard and Brandon's deaths. It tells us that the decision to make a claim for Robert to be the new King in Westeros was made during the rebellion, not before it. It tells us it wasn't the decision of the STAB alliance as it was forming in the pre-rebellion days. We are left to wonder what was the aim of the alliance after getting rid of the Targaryens - which, I agree, all evidence points to that being their first objective. If they aim to claim the Iron Throne in the pre-rebellion days, it isn't with Robert's claim.

So, what then was the unifying goal for a post Targaryen era that bound the STAB alliance together? And, perhaps more importantly, what was the goal that bound Lord Tywin Lannister to the alliance? Do you think Tywin was on the verge of joining the alliance through the marriage of his heir Jaime to the second daughter of Hoster Tully, because he wanted Rickard Stark to become the new King of Westeros? I think not. Or do you think the STAB alliance all of the sudden decided to offer Tywin the throne? Again, I think not. Yet they almost came to agreement for House Lannister to join. One has to explain how that happened.

Now, why was the goal of the alliance different in the pre-rebellion days from what it becomes during the rebellion? Because circumstances change and force the rebels to change their goals with them. The rebellion is fought with four High Lords as the leadership of the rebellion - with the Tullys joining late. Why then should the victorious rebels leave the look of the future of Westeros to include those who fought against them? Or those who waited until the last minute to join the rebellion, as was the case with the Lannisters and the Greyjoys. I'd say there is every reason to, under those circumstances for the victorious rebels to dictate that the Houses that fought the rebellion will decide the make up of the future, and they will make sure they control it.

Not so fast ... We know Robert's kingship was not announced until the Trident, but this does not mean it was not the plan before that. There is a difference between having a plan and being open about it. Could you do me a favour and possibly quote the passage you are referring to, wrt Jon, Ned and Robert? I do know about it, and my recollection is that Robert says wistfully Ned or Jon should have been king, and Ned assures him he had the better claim. I have just tried looking for it, but cannot find it. I believe they debated who should be king just before the Trident, but Robert's regrets over his position lead me to believe he portrayed the chances of Ned or Jon making a claim as rather more significant than they were. The meeting at the time could have been more of rubber stamping affair to something already thought obvious.

However, the important point to remember here is this. Robert's claim to kingship, pre-revolt, would have been based on several things. 1. He had a claim by blood. 2. He was not a Targaryen. 3. He was going to marry Lyanna Stark. During the war itself, 3 was likely not true anymore, because of Rhaegar. And a new Stark-Baratheon dynasty was the proposition, in my opinion, not Robert being king regardless of who he was married to. So the events following Lyanna's abduction derailed the original plan and cast some doubt on whether it was still viable. This, I would suggest, is one reason why Robert did not declare straight away, and why there was a discussion as late as the Trident as to who would be king. Rickard was interested in the plan because he would be the king's father-in-law. The Starks would not be so happy fighting a war to give the position to Tywin. Moreover, STAB ended up fighting defensively, when Aerys called for Robert and Ned's heads. So their immediate goal was actually to protect themselves, whereas they planned, presumably to fight an aggressive war to take the throne from the Targaryens.

I believe throughout the books too many people focus on Robert during the rebellion for his kingship to have been an afterthought. I cited JonCon's reflections before the Battle of the Bells. I think there are other examples as well, and I might do a thread on the subject when I find them. As I've said though, after the Targs took the initiative by taking Lyanna and killing Rickard and Brandon, the rebels were not fighting the war they intended, and their plan, of a Stark-Baratheon dynasty was off the cards. People's focus on Robert during the rebellion is thus the residue of the original pre-war plan, and at the Trident Jon decided to carry on with it anyway, switching the Starks out, as the new-in-laws, for the Lannisters.

I think your last paragraph highlights the weakness of the argument that says the revolt was originally intended to breakup the seven kingdoms. The likely outcome, if the rebels were victorious, was that their armies would be in a commanding position. You say that after the actual war this fact caused them to back a new dynasty to control all of westeros, even though they initially planned to break up the realm. Surely, though, what did happen was actually always the most probable outcome if they succeeded. Given this they should always have planned to replace the Targ dynasty and keep the realm together, rather than split it up. It was not like circumstances after the war were unforeseeable, esp if you think they aimed to destroy House Targaryen.

As for Tywin, I believe Tywin's ultimate goal was to get his grandchildren on the IT and depose Aerys and that he saw this as revenge for what Aerys did to his wife. This made him something of a Rhaegar loyalist for a while, but Rhaegar's reluctance to move against his father and his marriage to Elia made Tywin's prospects of pulling his plan off more remote. Exactly, what he was doing trying to marry into STAB I am not sure, but I do not believe he wanted the SK broken up. Likely he saw a big alliance emerging and thought his position would be improved by having some ties to it, so he would be an influential member and have a chance at steering it towards his own designs.

[Luddagain]

I think the Blue roses was a political statement from Rhaegar that he WOULD join the STAB.

The Blue roses are I think a political symbol - like the red and white roses of the War of the Roses.

Think of the sellsword company started by the Northerners who would NOT accept Targaryan rule - it is called the Order of the Blue Rose.

[SFDanny]

16 hours ago, Chaircat Meow said:

Not so fast ... We know Robert's kingship was not announced until the Trident, but this does not mean it was not the plan before that. There is a difference between having a plan and being open about it. Could you do me a favour and possibly quote the passage you are referring to, wrt Jon, Ned and Robert? I do know about it, and my recollection is that Robert says wistfully Ned or Jon should have been king, and Ned assures him he had the better claim. I have just tried looking for it, but cannot find it. I believe they debated who should be king just before the Trident, but Robert's regrets over his position lead me to believe he portrayed the chances of Ned or Jon making a claim as rather more significant than they were. The meeting at the time could have been more of rubber stamping affair to something already thought obvious.

 

Quote

"Drink. Your king commands it."

Ned took the horn and drank. The beer was black and thick, so strong it sound the eyes.

Robert sat down again. "Damn you, Ned Stark. You and Jon Arryn, I loved you both. What have you done to me? You were the one should have been king, you or Jon."

"You had the better claim, Your Grace."

"I told you to drink, not to argue. You made me king, you could at least have the courtesy to listen when I talk, damn you. Look at me, Ned. Look at what kinging had done to me. Gods, too fat for my armor, how did it ever come to this?" (AGoT 259) bold emphasis added

and

Quote

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

Robert proclaimed his intention to take the throne ... around the time of the Trident. Would not elaborate any further. Mentioned Robert's claim being stronger than Eddard Stark's and Jon Arryn's, the leaders of the two other great houses that spearheaded the revolution, due to blood ties to the Targaryen's (SSM 1384)

The discussion between Robert and Ned, and the author's comments all tell us the same. The decision was made between Robert, Ned, and Jon Arryn about which of them would be the new king. That Ned is involved as a possible candidate for kingship tells us that this was done after Rickard and Brandon are killed, or Ned would not be considered before them. The remarks of Martin telling us the claim is proclaimed "around the time of the Trident" tells us the other end of the range of time possible for the decision to have been made. All of which rules out a pre-rebellion plan to put either Robert or Jon Arryn on the throne. If either one was the STAB candidate there is no reason to make a decision on this after the start of the rebellion. It would have already been decided. It is important to note that Robert never blames Rickard Stark or Hoster Tully for making him king.

All the evidence points to neither Robert or Jon Arryn being the STAB alliance's pre-rebellion choice for king to follow their ouster of the Targaryens. Which begs the question who was if anyone was? I believe there is a choice between only Rickard and Tywin - or the Alliance had no one who was their choice for a new king. Does anyone think Rickard would orchestrate this alliance for at least a decade in order to put Tywin on the throne? Tywin who spends most of this time scheming to marry his daughter to Rhaegar? No, it makes no sense.

But if not that, then do we believe, the same Tywin would sign on to the alliance's aims to set up Rickard as the new king? Not a chance. Tywin wants to rule, not be a junior partner to someone else's rise to power. That leaves only the last option - the alliance had no choice for a new king. But what then brought these men together? What makes sense is a common desire to rule their own people without a need to kneel to any overlord.

[Lord Wraith]

9 hours ago, Luddagain said:

Think of the sellsword company started by the Northerners who would NOT accept Targaryan rule - it is called the Order of the Blue Rose.

Company of the Rose. I expect them to show up in the North at some point.

[SFDanny]

19 hours ago, Chaircat Meow said:

However, the important point to remember here is this. Robert's claim to kingship, pre-revolt, would have been based on several things. 1. He had a claim by blood. 2. He was not a Targaryen. 3. He was going to marry Lyanna Stark. During the war itself, 3 was likely not true anymore, because of Rhaegar. And a new Stark-Baratheon dynasty was the proposition, in my opinion, not Robert being king regardless of who he was married to. So the events following Lyanna's abduction derailed the original plan and cast some doubt on whether it was still viable. This, I would suggest, is one reason why Robert did not declare straight away, and why there was a discussion as late as the Trident as to who would be king. Rickard was interested in the plan because he would be the king's father-in-law. The Starks would not be so happy fighting a war to give the position to Tywin. Moreover, STAB ended up fighting defensively, when Aerys called for Robert and Ned's heads. So their immediate goal was actually to protect themselves, whereas they planned, presumably to fight an aggressive war to take the throne from the Targaryens.

I believe throughout the books too many people focus on Robert during the rebellion for his kingship to have been an afterthought. I cited JonCon's reflections before the Battle of the Bells. I think there are other examples as well, and I might do a thread on the subject when I find them. As I've said though, after the Targs took the initiative by taking Lyanna and killing Rickard and Brandon, the rebels were not fighting the war they intended, and their plan, of a Stark-Baratheon dynasty was off the cards. People's focus on Robert during the rebellion is thus the residue of the original pre-war plan, and at the Trident Jon decided to carry on with it anyway, switching the Starks out, as the new-in-laws, for the Lannisters.

Robert's pre rebellion "claim" is based on his Targaryen blood. Marrying Lyanna gets him no closer to that claim other than what the arms the North would supply in a war.

Jon Connington's thoughts about Robert stem not from Robert's claim by blood of the throne, but Robert's leadership in the rebellion. Up to the Battle of the Bells, it is Robert's leadership that has won victories for the rebels at Gulltown, Summerhall, etc. It is his stand in the Battle of the Bells that rallies the people to him. Robert proves himself in battle to be a courageous and formable commander. It is small wonder that Lord Connington thinks if he had killed him the battle he would have destroyed the rebellion.

The decision to "switch out the Starks" for the Lannisters is not made until sometime after the sack of King's Landing. Most likely not until Ned shows back up from his journeys with news of Lyanna's death.

20 hours ago, Chaircat Meow said:

I think your last paragraph highlights the weakness of the argument that says the revolt was originally intended to breakup the seven kingdoms. The likely outcome, if the rebels were victorious, was that their armies would be in a commanding position. You say that after the actual war this fact caused them to back a new dynasty to control all of westeros, even though they initially planned to break up the realm. Surely, though, what did happen was actually always the most probable outcome if they succeeded. Given this they should always have planned to replace the Targ dynasty and keep the realm together, rather than split it up. It was not like circumstances after the war were unforeseeable, esp if you think they aimed to destroy House Targaryen.

As for Tywin, I believe Tywin's ultimate goal was to get his grandchildren on the IT and depose Aerys and that he saw this as revenge for what Aerys did to his wife. This made him something of a Rhaegar loyalist for a while, but Rhaegar's reluctance to move against his father and his marriage to Elia made Tywin's prospects of pulling his plan off more remote. Exactly, what he was doing trying to marry into STAB I am not sure, but I do not believe he wanted the SK broken up. Likely he saw a big alliance emerging and thought his position would be improved by having some ties to it, so he would be an influential member and have a chance at steering it towards his own designs.

If Jaime isn't stolen from Tywin, and the Lannisters marry into the STAB bloc, then only the Tyrells are left of the High Lords of the realm to join the alliance. Dorne is married to Rhaegar's interests and won't join. The Greyjoys will go with which way the wind blows. The Tyrells have some of their most important bannermen possibly marrying into the alliance in the Florents (Stannis-Selyse) and the Redwynes (Blackfish-Bethany) so they have to be suspect in their loyalty, or at least persuadable if these ties are made.

So what happens if these ties are consummated? The High Lords of the Realm just renounce their oaths of fealty and leave the Targaryens to ether accept the crown lands and Dragonstone as their domain, or they fight the combined might of the six High Lords with only the help of Dorne. In return, each of the six High Lords are now, once again, a king in their own lands. The evidence points to this being their plan.

[Chaircat Meow]

8 hours ago, SFDanny said:

The discussion between Robert and Ned, and the author's comments all tell us the same. The decision was made between Robert, Ned, and Jon Arryn about which of them would be the new king. That Ned is involved as a possible candidate for kingship tells us that this was done after Rickard and Brandon are killed, or Ned would not be considered before them. The remarks of Martin telling us the claim is proclaimed "around the time of the Trident" tells us the other end of the range of time possible for the decision to have been made. All of which rules out a pre-rebellion plan to put either Robert or Jon Arryn on the throne. If either one was the STAB candidate there is no reason to make a decision on this after the start of the rebellion. It would have already been decided. It is important to note that Robert never blames Rickard Stark or Hoster Tully for making him king.

All the evidence points to neither Robert or Jon Arryn being the STAB alliance's pre-rebellion choice for king to follow their ouster of the Targaryens. Which begs the question who was if anyone was? I believe there is a choice between only Rickard and Tywin - or the Alliance had no one who was their choice for a new king. Does anyone think Rickard would orchestrate this alliance for at least a decade in order to put Tywin on the throne? Tywin who spends most of this time scheming to marry his daughter to Rhaegar? No, it makes no sense.

But if not that, then do we believe, the same Tywin would sign on to the alliance's aims to set up Rickard as the new king? Not a chance. Tywin wants to rule, not be a junior partner to someone else's rise to power. That leaves only the last option - the alliance had no choice for a new king. But what then brought these men together? What makes sense is a common desire to rule their own people without a need to kneel to any overlord.

Ok, dude, thanks for the quote I asked for. I think your construction of what happened, based on the quote and the SSM is possible but I do not think it is the only interpretation, or, necessarily, the most likely. Firstly, we do not have to pin these two snippets together in the way you have. Robert choosing to proclaim himself as king does not have to happen at the same time as he, Jon and Ned decide he will be king. They could have held off from such a proclamation for some time and made the decision before.

Secondly, I am even less convinced now than I was before that Robert’s comment implies there was a meeting of some kind, during the war, where the decision to prefer Robert to Jon and Ned was made. Robert makes his comment while mulling over his regrets, and while aware of his unfitness for the throne. Telling Ned it should have been him or Jon is a reflection of Robert’s mood, not a clue that there was ever an explicit choice made between Ned, Jon and Robert. Ned and Jon are his two best friends, he’s asked them both to serve as hand, and on some level acknowledges they are more suited for the job than him. Ned’s comment, meanwhile, is just a statement of the obvious, Robert had a better claim than just about anybody not called Targaryen.

My theory, which is that the STAB alliance wanted to remove the Targaryens in favour of a new Stark-Baratheon dynasty, does not actually preclude the possibility of Jon and Ned endorsing Robert for king again around the time of the Trident though. STAB, IMO, wanted Starks and Baratheons on the throne, not necessarily Robert regardless of who he was married to. Therefore, my theory also explains how Rhaegar hoped to derive political advantage from abducting Lyanna: her marriage to Robert was going to be the centre of the alliance and the rebellion.

I am not sure why you think Tywin was ever a candidate for the kingship, tbh. I agree Rickard would have no interest in Tywin being on the throne, and see no evidence he did. Rickard himself is a bit more interesting, and I confess I had not thought of this. However, he is less viable than Robert for the following reasons. Firstly, he has no blood claim, but Robert does. Secondly, he is not married into one of the other great houses, unlike Robert (who was going to marry Lyanna). His son, and likely heir Brandon, is going to marry into the Tullys, giving them the coveted position of royal-in-laws, so this is a very good deal for the Tullys. It is less good for Robert and Jon, and as the Tullys seem to be the one of the four rebel houses least invested in the whole scheme and in the rebellion I find it unlikely, on balance, that this was the plan.

On Tywin, we can discuss this more but I think what Tywin wants is revenge against Aerys, and he hoped to get it overthrowing Aerys and marrying his daughter to Rhaegar. However, by the time he was thinking about marrying Jaime to Lysa this plan had failed, or was failing. I don’t know precisely why he was interested in STAB, but Tywin does not come across as someone with any desire to see the westerlands be an independent kingdom. He is quite invested in the Iron Throne.

[Chaircat Meow]

6 hours ago, SFDanny said:

 

Jon Connington's thoughts about Robert stem not from Robert's claim by blood of the throne, but Robert's leadership in the rebellion. Up to the Battle of the Bells, it is Robert's leadership that has won victories for the rebels at Gulltown, Summerhall, etc. It is his stand in the Battle of the Bells that rallies the people to him. Robert proves himself in battle to be a courageous and formable commander. It is small wonder that Lord Connington thinks if he had killed him the battle he would have destroyed the rebellion.

At the Bells Robert had no army. He was hiding in a brothel and had to be rescued by the combined Stark-Tully-Arryn forces. That army was raised by Jon and Ned. Jon arranged the marriages with Hoster to shore up Tully support. Why would Jon think the death of the weakest rebel lord, whose army appears to have already disappeared, would have ended a revolt when three more powerful lords were in the field with their armies?

Let us take the case of Lord Godric of Sweetsister. In DwD Lord Godric recounts to Davos what was said when he encountered Ned trying to get to get from the North to the Vale to raise his banners. According to Lord Godric,

‘By then we knew that Jon Arryn had taken Gulltown, though. Robert was the first man to gain the wall, and slew Marc Grafton with his own hand. ‘’This Baratheon is fearless,’’ I said. ‘’He fights the way a king should fight.’’ Our maester chuckled at me and told us that Prince Rhaegar was certain to defeat this rebel.’

Is the bolded not a very odd thing to say unless there was already an expectation that Robert would take the throne. It reads like Godric knew Robert was eventually going to throw his hat in the ring for the IT, yet, we know Robert had not officially made any such claim.

Or, there is Jaime, in SoS, talking to Brienne.

‘’After dancing Griffins lost the Battle of the Bells, Aerys exiled him … he had finally realized that Robert was no mere outlaw lord to be crushed at whim, but the greatest threat House Targaryen had faced since Daemon Blackfyre.’’

Again, this suggests that before he proclaimed himself king, Robert was considered the head of the rebellion. Given he had the fewest forces of the four rebel great lords this really only makes sense if he was the one marked down for the kingship.

People continually give Robert an importance he does not merit if he is just one of four rebel lords. He was plainly seen as the head of the revolt from the start, and the only reason for that, given how weak his actual material contributions were, was that he was the replacement for Aerys and Rhaegar.

[SFDanny]

3 hours ago, Chaircat Meow said:

Ok, dude, thanks for the quote I asked for. I think your construction of what happened, based on the quote and the SSM is possible but I do not think it is the only interpretation, or, necessarily, the most likely. Firstly, we do not have to pin these two snippets together in the way you have. Robert choosing to proclaim himself as king does not have to happen at the same time as he, Jon and Ned decide he will be king. They could have held off from such a proclamation for some time and made the decision before.

To the bolded part, I couldn't agree more. Which is why I show the timeframe in which the decision has to have been made. I've gone over this a few times, but let me do so again.

1. Because Ned is one of the candidates for the rebels choice to be king, we can say the decision cannot have occurred before the deaths of Rickard and Brandon. It makes no logical sense to have the second son of Winterfell to be a possible choice when the High Lord of the North and his heir are still alive. This marks one end of the timeframe for decision to have been made. The earliest time in which it could have been made being after Rickard and Brandon's deaths.
2. Because we know the proclamation of Robert's claim to the throne is done around the time of the Trident, we know that the decision to put forward Robert as the alliance's choice for the throne takes place before this time. Again, it makes no logical sense to issue a proclamation of Robert's claim if the rebels have not actually made this choice already. This then is the second end of the timeframe in which the decision must have been made. Please note this rules out this decision being made in the pre-rebellion days of the STAB bloc.

Now, it is possible, but hardly likely, that the STAB bloc takes the same decision in the pre-rebellion days and then Jon Arryn, Ned, and Robert make the same decision for some reason during the timeframe shown above. But here it is not just the question of a redundant decision being made for no apparent reason, but it is also the absence of Rickard's name in any of Robert's complaints about who made him king. If Lord Rickard has gone through these great lengths for years to build the alliance centered on a effort to put Robert on the throne, then Robert should reference those efforts. He doesn't, because Rickard didn't. Which means the STAB alliance plans were something different than the decision made by Jon Arryn, Ned, and Robert for Robert to claim the throne.

3 hours ago, Chaircat Meow said:

Secondly, I am even less convinced now than I was before that Robert’s comment implies there was a meeting of some kind, during the war, where the decision to prefer Robert to Jon and Ned was made. Robert makes his comment while mulling over his regrets, and while aware of his unfitness for the throne. Telling Ned it should have been him or Jon is a reflection of Robert’s mood, not a clue that there was ever an explicit choice made between Ned, Jon and Robert. Ned and Jon are his two best friends, he’s asked them both to serve as hand, and on some level acknowledges they are more suited for the job than him. Ned’s comment, meanwhile, is just a statement of the obvious, Robert had a better claim than just about anybody not called Targaryen.

The author's comments in the second quote I gave you make it clear, in combination with the discussion between Ned and Robert, that there was an evaluation of each of the three men as the choice to be king and Robert's is put forward because his is the strongest claim. The phrase "strongest claim" in and of itself implies there was an evaluation of each claim in relationship to the others.

The idea that this is just something that happened without an explicit decision is, pardon me, foolish. We are talking about the future occupant of the Iron Throne here, not a matter to be left to what ever just happens. We are talking about Ned Stark and Jon Arryn making a decision based on what was necessary for the rebel side, not because they would shirk the duty if the evaluation meant that one of the two of them needed to be king. They decide it has to be Robert because of Robert's better claim to the throne, based on his Targaryen family connection better serve the rebels in winning the peace. 

A large part of the reason the Targaryens continued to be kings long after the dragons died can be summed up into one word - tradition. For almost three hundred years the people of Westeros, both the commoners and the lesser nobility, do not question that a Targaryen, and only a Targaryen, has the right to sit the Iron Throne. There may be squabbles amongst the dragons over which Targaryen should have the right to rule, but they have been conditioned to accept Targaryens as their overlords.

So, when one has to win a peace with a new king, not named Targaryen, it matters to winning that peace that Robert is a Targaryen on his mother's side. It is certainly a paradox that people who are set to win the throne by right of conquest would care about such a claim, but Ned and Jon Arryn are smart, intelligent people who understand the precarious nature of rebellion and the need to heal the wounds of war.

Robert has a connection to the Targaryens which they see the need to exploit. Yes, he is also a war hero, and a great charismatic figure, but his blood tie they consciously and coldly evaluate and see a need to use it to help to win the aftermath of the rebellion in Westeros. To think that men who have spent the last year fighting for their lives and against the oaths of fealty they swore to the Targaryens, do not see the contradiction between using the blood tie to the Targaryens and the war they just are about to win is foolish. Ned and Jon do not owe Robert the crown because of his ancestors. They use that family history to help them win. Nothing more. Nothing less.

It is not that Ned and Jon Arryn can't see Robert's faults. It's just they can't see how ill-suited he really is for kingship. That and they can't see how unable Jon will be to curb Robert's faults once he becomes king.  

9 hours ago, Chaircat Meow said:

My theory, which is that the STAB alliance wanted to remove the Targaryens in favour of a new Stark-Baratheon dynasty, does not actually preclude the possibility of Jon and Ned endorsing Robert for king again around the time of the Trident though. STAB, IMO, wanted Starks and Baratheons on the throne, not necessarily Robert regardless of who he was married to. Therefore, my theory also explains how Rhaegar hoped to derive political advantage from abducting Lyanna: her marriage to Robert was going to be the centre of the alliance and the rebellion.

I am not sure why you think Tywin was ever a candidate for the kingship, tbh. I agree Rickard would have no interest in Tywin being on the throne, and see no evidence he did. Rickard himself is a bit more interesting, and I confess I had not thought of this. However, he is less viable than Robert for the following reasons. Firstly, he has no blood claim, but Robert does. Secondly, he is not married into one of the other great houses, unlike Robert (who was going to marry Lyanna). His son, and likely heir Brandon, is going to marry into the Tullys, giving them the coveted position of royal-in-laws, so this is a very good deal for the Tullys. It is less good for Robert and Jon, and as the Tullys seem to be the one of the four rebel houses least invested in the whole scheme and in the rebellion I find it unlikely, on balance, that this was the plan.

On Tywin, we can discuss this more but I think what Tywin wants is revenge against Aerys, and he hoped to get it overthrowing Aerys and marrying his daughter to Rhaegar. However, by the time he was thinking about marrying Jaime to Lysa this plan had failed, or was failing. I don’t know precisely why he was interested in STAB, but Tywin does not come across as someone with any desire to see the westerlands be an independent kingdom. He is quite invested in the Iron Throne.

You need to explain how the STAB alliance wins Tywin to its ranks? Does he support the aim of a Stark-Baratheon dynasty and why? Why does the Tullys and the Arryns support such a aim? Why would Hoster Tully and Jon Arryn go to war to get rid of the Targaryens if it is to put Robert on the throne? Why don't they support Rhaegar's call for a Great Council if it is only Aerys they want to get rid of?

[Chaircat Meow]

I think it might be best if I sketched out my theory again, because this may answer your issues more effectively than me responding point-by-point. I’m saying prior to the rebellion an explicit, although secret, decision was made by Rickard and Jon to offer up Robert and Lyanna as an alternative king and queen to Aerys and Rhaella (and Rhae and Elia) when the time was right. This plan was somewhat derailed by Aerys and Rhaegar’s first strike against STAB, but during the war Jon Arryn decided to continue the scheme anyway, replacing the Starks with the Lannisters as the king’s-in-laws. I imagine Jon as the political leader of the revolt, and Robert and Ned essentially going along with him.

Our major disagreement seems to revolve around what Robert’s statement to Ned in GoT means. You read much more into Robert’s words than I do. You think that they imply Ned, Jon and Robert had a meeting during the war, in which they chose Robert to succeed Aerys, and you think that prior to this meeting there had been no discussion or decision about a replacement dynasty. You think Robert lists all potential candidates, and because Rickard is not included, this omission ‘dates’ the decision so to speak.

I just don’t assume Robert meant anything so precise. I gave the reasons in my last post. To briefly recap: Robert is just telling Ned he wishes he wasn’t king, and that he and Jon were better suited, etc and Ned and GrrM are just making the obvious point that Robert had the better claim. I don’t see anything more to it. I don’t think it refers to a specific point at which the decision to replace the Targaryens was made, or that it suggests Ned and Jon were, at one time, considered equally good candidates for the throne and no one else (like Rickard was). Robert is not being that precise, in my view.  

As for why Rickard is not mentioned: Robert has no reason to bring him up. Rickard was not at the Trident, nor did he fight in the war. Ned and Jon had the largest armies at the Trident, they were Robert’s principal backers, so they made him king. Rickard, on the other hand, was dead at the time.

1 hour ago, SFDanny said:

To the bolded part, I couldn't agree more. Which is why I show the timeframe in which the decision has to have been made. I've gone over this a few times, but let me do so again.

1. Because Ned is one of the candidates for the rebels choice to be king, we can say the decision cannot have occurred before the deaths of Rickard and Brandon. It makes no logical sense to have the second son of Winterfell to be a possible choice when the High Lord of the North and his heir are still alive. This marks one end of the timeframe for decision to have been made. The earliest time in which it could have been made being after Rickard and Brandon's deaths.
2. Because we know the proclamation of Robert's claim to the throne is done around the time of the Trident, we know that the decision to put forward Robert as the alliance's choice for the throne takes place before this time. Again, it makes no logical sense to issue a proclamation of Robert's claim if the rebels have not actually made this choice already. This then is the second end of the timeframe in which the decision must have been made. Please note this rules out this decision being made in the pre-rebellion days of the STAB bloc.

Now, it is possible, but hardly likely, that the STAB bloc takes the same decision in the pre-rebellion days and then Jon Arryn, Ned, and Robert make the same decision for some reason during the timeframe shown above. But here it is not just the question of a redundant decision being made for no apparent reason, but it is also the absence of Rickard's name in any of Robert's complaints about who made him king. If Lord Rickard has gone through these great lengths for years to build the alliance centered on a effort to put Robert on the throne, then Robert should reference those efforts. He doesn't, because Rickard didn't. Which means the STAB alliance plans were something different than the decision made by Jon Arryn, Ned, and Robert for Robert to claim the throne.

In addition to what I’ve said above, I should add that a decision would not be redundant at this point. The original plan would be for Robert and Lyanna to be king and queen. Her abduction, and the possibility the marriage might not therefore go ahead, would have occasioned some doubts about the plan.

1 hour ago, SFDanny said:

The author's comments in the second quote I gave you make it clear, in combination with the discussion between Ned and Robert, that there was an evaluation of each of the three men as the choice to be king and Robert's is put forward because his is the strongest claim. The phrase "strongest claim" in and of itself implies there was an evaluation of each claim in relationship to the others.

As I have said, I just don’t read it this way. I think you are reading far more into those two quotes than I would.

1 hour ago, SFDanny said:

The idea that this is just something that happened without an explicit decision is, pardon me, foolish. We are talking about the future occupant of the Iron Throne here, not a matter to be left to what ever just happens. We are talking about Ned Stark and Jon Arryn making a decision based on what was necessary for the rebel side, not because they would shirk the duty if the evaluation meant that one of the two of them needed to be king. They decide it has to be Robert because of Robert's better claim to the throne, based on his Targaryen family connection better serve the rebels in winning the peace. 

A large part of the reason the Targaryens continued to be kings long after the dragons died can be summed up into one word - tradition. For almost three hundred years the people of Westeros, both the commoners and the lesser nobility, do not question that a Targaryen, and only a Targaryen, has the right to sit the Iron Throne. There may be squabbles amongst the dragons over which Targaryen should have the right to rule, but they have been conditioned to accept Targaryens as their overlords.

So, when one has to win a peace with a new king, not named Targaryen, it matters to winning that peace that Robert is a Targaryen on his mother's side. It is certainly a paradox that people who are set to win the throne by right of conquest would care about such a claim, but Ned and Jon Arryn are smart, intelligent people who understand the precarious nature of rebellion and the need to heal the wounds of war.

Robert has a connection to the Targaryens which they see the need to exploit. Yes, he is also a war hero, and a great charismatic figure, but his blood tie they consciously and coldly evaluate and see a need to use it to help to win the aftermath of the rebellion in Westeros. To think that men who have spent the last year fighting for their lives and against the oaths of fealty they swore to the Targaryens, do not see the contradiction between using the blood tie to the Targaryens and the war they just are about to win is foolish. Ned and Jon do not owe Robert the crown because of his ancestors. They use that family history to help them win. Nothing more. Nothing less.

It is not that Ned and Jon Arryn can't see Robert's faults. It's just they can't see how ill-suited he really is for kingship. That and they can't see how unable Jon will be to curb Robert's faults once he becomes king.  

You need to explain how the STAB alliance wins Tywin to its ranks? Does he support the aim of a Stark-Baratheon dynasty and why? Why does the Tullys and the Arryns support such a aim? Why would Hoster Tully and Jon Arryn go to war to get rid of the Targaryens if it is to put Robert on the throne? Why don't they support Rhaegar's call for a Great Council if it is only Aerys they want to get rid of?

 

Ok, so maybe I should explain a bit more about why the Baratheon-Stark marriage makes sense as the reason for the STAB alliance. There were a number of reasons for thinking the Targaryens should be removed. They were on borrowed time (they had lost their dragons), they might have been trying to bring their dragons back (Egg/potentially Rhaegar), they believed in magic/prophecy, they had shown some desire to curtail the power of the great lords (although Tywin had rolled some of this back) and they had spurned the desire of the high lords to marry into their family (Egg seems very guilty of this). Both the Starks and Baratheons felt cheated that marriages had not been offered to them (or fully made good on). The Citadel with its anti-magic agenda, would encourage this. So they were not only after Aerys, but the whole dynasty. They wanted power, security and prestige.

The Starks and Baratheons will be the most powerful families in the realm if the plan succeeds. Jon was Robert’s surrogate father and could expect to have great influence when Robert was king. The Tullys, through the Brandon-Cat match, would also be much more closely tied to the court and king than they were under Aerys’s regime. All of these lords may have genuinely disliked the Targaryens, fearing their connection to magic/prophecy and the Eggs’s desire to bring back the dragons and curtail their power. A new dynasty they had a major stake in would have been very attractive.  

As for Tywin, although I don’t know exactly what he was up to, I think, as I have said, he wanted to have influence over the other lords, and hoped to turn STAB to his own advantage. He hates Aerys and wants him overthrown, but originally, he hoped he could do this in conjunction with Rhaegar, and put Cersei’s children on the throne. As the years past, these hopes receded, and he may have been willing to try other options to get his revenge on the Targaryens, including supporting STAB. And, tbh, if he really wanted the SK broken up, why didn’t he join the rebels from the start, rather than wait? If, on the other hand, his ultimate goal is the destruction of king Aerys, and a marriage between his own family and the Targs, he would wait for Aerys to summon him back to defeat the rebels, and use his control of the royal army to depose Aerys in favour of Rhaegar, or maybe even Viserys if he could find some way to get rid of Rhaegar. I think what happened in the end was that Jon offered him Robert’s hand for Cersei secretly, while the war was ongoing, and Tywin intervened in the way he did because of this deal with Jon.