The benefits of Targaryen inbreeding

[Sea Dragon]

The purpose of the Targaryens and their incest is to preserve their genes and dragon blood and to show there is a master race. They are the best. Enough said. 

[Lord Varys]

@cpg2016

George himself describes the system the Targaryens established as an absolute monarchy. And it makes sense if you think about it. They came as foreign invaders with powerful magical weapons and crushed the indigenous monarchies and other power structures like the Faith.

When you read the history of the Conquest it is very evident that Aegon the Conqueror took all the rights and privileges from his defeated enemies and then restored them to lords at his pleasure. What the king gave the king can take again. The Targaryens destroy the Gardeners and the Hoares back then and they later discussed to destroy the Baratheons, Lannisters, and Hightowers in a similar manner during the Dance. Those things were on the table. They did not do this but they could have.

The loss of the dragons reduced the direct power the Targaryens had over their kingdom but the power of the lords did not increase. Custom and tradition established during the dragon days had established the Targaryen kings as semi-divine absolutist kings. They had no right to make their voice heard. No parliament, no Estates-General, no anything. The only way for a lord to gain power was to suck up to the king and get named to the Small Council. The great houses hold a lot of power in the territories they control but their power comes from the king, too. In the North this is a lot of personal power because of the remoteness but in the South things should be different.

And we also know that only the king can make new lords or attaint lords. If you think about that the power of the great houses is very restricted. They have no opportunity to reward their clients by making them lords, they merely manage the system the king set in place as his officials. Yes, their own lordships and titles are hereditary but if a lord misbehaves he can quickly lose honors, lands, titles, etc.

The only way a lord has to defend himself against royal whims is to start an open rebellion. He has no other option.

There is certainly a concept what a good and a bad king is, and it is quite clear that especially the Faith knows the concept of a tyrant. Aenys I is denounced as such by the High Septon, and presumably Maegor later as well. You can rebel against and depose such a king. But this doesn't mean you can (necessarily) overthrow an entire dynasty.

[cpg2016]

15 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That is the thing, we do not know that. His behavior is very odd. He was on no extended mission as far as we know. He just sat on Dragonstone with a lot of ships and sailors, apparently doing nothing. If he was on no mission his place as the Master of Ships is at the court in the Small Council, no?

And no, we don't know Stannis' mind well enough to know that he wouldn't break the law (he did, when he supported Robert over Aerys II) and if he can betray one king he can betray another, too.

We don't know anything about Stannis' mission.  I would wager that he has authority over the royal fleet in the King's absence.  Since Robert doesn't seem too peeved that he's gone off with a lot of the fleet, I would think this is within the scope of his authority.  And we don't know what he was doing on Dragonstone.  By which I mean, he may have been patrolling the Narrow Sea for piracy, etc, he just isn't moving anywhere en masse.

And if he's on no mission, his place is probably at court, yes.  Unfortunately, Kings Landing isn't "court".  Wherever Robert is, is where the court is.  And no one else goes with Robert either, so it isn't unusual that Stannis isn't there.

And we DO know Stannis well enough to know whether he's break the law.  He's a strict legalist.  He betrays Aerys only because he believes that older laws, blood laws, should precede those of legal rights.  Something ALL Westerosi nobles believe, which is why marriage alliances exist, because ties of blood ring truer than ties of law (for better or worse).  He explicitly says it was the hardest choosing of his life, despite the tyrannical nature of Aerys' rule, the obvious justice of Robert's cause, and the fact that it's his own brother.

Quote

It was Stannis' duty to inform Robert about his suspicions about Jaime and Cersei and the death of Jon Arryn. But he did nothing of this sort. At best this wasn't helpful. But I call it treason by omission.

Why is it his duty?  And if the manner in which he tells Robert ensures that Robert won't listen, has he actually done is duty?  Cersei tells Robert he is too fat to participate in the Tourney of the Hand melee (which is true, so... she is a good subject according to you), but she does it because she wants to goad him to participate and be killed (so she's a traitor).  See?  It is not so clear cut whether merely telling the truth is good service.  Good intentions mean more than mere honesty sometimes, and if Stannis is looking for a proper way to tell Robert, then he is providing loyal service.

Quote

But Robert is also spending a lot of money, no? He couldn't do that if Littlefinger didn't give him a lot of money to spend. In fact, if he sucked at his job he would be fired at once.

I'm not saying that Robert isn't profligate and beggaring the realm.  But Littlefinger is absurdly wealthy, despite having no means of income.  My theory is that he's skimming a lot of money off the top of the royal revenues.  So if the Crown is 6,000,000 dragons in debt, maybe 1,000,000 of that is due to Littlefinger's corruption (making that number up, but it's obviously extremely substantial).  That is a very meaningful sum of money.  He has enough money to go around buying up the huge debts of nobles in the Vale, throw expensive feasts and parties, all without breaking a sweat in the finances department.  So yeah... I think the massive Crown debt is a combination of both Robert's excess and Littlefinger's corruption.  Not just one or the other.

Quote

 

We have no such thing for the Iron Throne and George recently stated that the Targaryens established an absolute monarchy. His words, not mine. There are no institutions of the lords or commons in the Realm, the only legal bodies of authority are the king's small council, his government and court, along with what meager bureaucracy they have across the Realm. The lords all hold land in the name of the king. They don't have the right to assemble and advise him collectively on a parliament or something like that. Great Councils are called by and presided over by the king or the Hand, and there were only three of those (as far as we know) in the history of the Targaryen reign.

I still agree that lords and even commons have the right to rebel against a tyrant, false king, mad king, etc. There are hints in that direction. But this doesn't mean that gives those rebels the right to overthrow the entire dynasty.

 

Please quote.  Because what the text states is that Aegon I created a feudal monarchy backed by the absolute power of the dragons, which is very different than an absolute monarchy.  And lords holding land in the name of the king IS feudalism.

And since Great Councils have disinherited superior claimants in favor of inferior claimants, it's clear that merely having the best blood claim is no guarantee of succession.  So Robert has legal basis on those grounds, even if he really is establishing a new dynasty through conquest.  Both IRL and IOTL, dynasties are overthrown if they lose the consent of the governed (the governed being the political elite).

  23 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

I'll find it.  It's in WOIAF.

You can look for it but I'm pretty sure it isn't there.

  6 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

My point is that it is possible that the Small Councillors have similar authority over their respective spheres.  Obviously the Master of Ships will have some leeway to execute maneuvers in support of an objective while on campaign.  Similarly, bringing the fleet to Dragonstone isn't absconding with it, or doing anything illegal, as I'm sure Stannis' job in the normal course of things is to protect the coast of Westeros and it's shipping.  Might he have an ulterior motive?  Sure, but again... not illegal.  We don't know enough about his responsibilities to make a judgement call, but we do know enough about Stannis to be pretty sure he wouldn't break the law or betray his brother.

That is the thing, we do not know that. His behavior is very odd. He was on no extended mission as far as we know. He just sat on Dragonstone with a lot of ships and sailors, apparently doing nothing. If he was on no mission his place as the Master of Ships is at the court in the Small Council, no?

And no, we don't know Stannis' mind well enough to know that he wouldn't break the law (he did, when he supported Robert over Aerys II) and if he can betray one king he can betray another, too.

  6 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

If you cannot see the difference between starting a potential civil war and being afraid of a woman, this argument is going nowhere. He isn't afraid of Cersei, he's concerned about the consequences of his actions.  And for what it's worth, Robert hadn't chosen another Hand, because Ned hadn't accepted, and as we see IOTL, Ned is on the verge of not accepting it as it is!  ANd yes, he is envious of Ned because he is closer to Robert than Stannis is.

Robert had chosen another Hand. Ned had as of yet no accepted but Robert had made his decision who his next was supposed to be. And it was not Stannis. And then Stannis apparently acted like a child, just as Prince Maekar did when Aerys I named Bloodraven his Hand, not Maekar. He left court and sulked at his own seat. But the difference is that Stannis took the bulk of the royal fleet.

And again, the consequences don't matter. It was Stannis' duty to inform Robert about his suspicions about Jaime and Cersei and the death of Jon Arryn. But he did nothing of this sort. At best this wasn't helpful. But I call it treason by omission.

  6 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

You go back and forth.  First you say Stannis has no proof (so there is no "truth") and then you say it is his job to bring every whisper he hears or thinks to Robert's attention (which is Varys' task).  First off, even if he knows, Stannis has no "duty" to tell the truth, the same as no one has a duty to tell their friend they are being cheated on.  If Robert had asked, Stannis would have told.  Stannis expects his people to obey, not offer up truths he doesn't need.  Alester Florent is burned alive because he takes the initiative in telling Stannis a hard truth without asking (that the war for the Iron Throne was lost).  Davos is rewarded because he speaks truth to power when asked!

 

Well, let's look at events in detail:

1. Stannis has suspicions about the royal children. He thinks they might not be Robert's seed so technically they would be Lannister bastards with no claim to the Iron Throne.

2. He goes to Jon Arryn to investigate this because he fears Robert might not believe him if the news came from him, his younger brother, who would greatly profit from this development.

3. Jon Arryn suddenly dies before they can talk to Robert about this. This confirms for Stannis more or less that he was right.

4. When Robert decides to name Ned his new Hand Stannis leaves court and does nothing to help either Robert or Ned. He gathers his forces and waits until Robert is dead. Then he makes a move to take the Iron Throne, intending to kill his sister-in-law and her children in the process.

Now, what is wrong with that? Wrong is the fact that Stannis Baratheon has no proof for his claims that Cersei's children are not, in fact, Robert's. The only person to sit in judgment over Cersei Lannister and to rule on the legitimacy of the royal children was King Robert. Who never could do this because Stannis didn't tell. That means that Stannis should actually have continued to remain as silent as he was after Jon Arryn died. He has no right to challenge the claim of his nephew Joffrey who was acknowledged as a Baratheon by King Robert, named Heir Apparent and Crown Prince by King Robert, and named as his successor in King Robert's last will (the real last will Robert actually dictated, not the forged last will Ned wrote down).

If you are trying to say Stannis can do whatever the hell he wants just because that is opinion or belief you are wrong. This is a society and there are rules. If a child is born in wedlock it is the child of the husband until this is proven false. And the heir of a king is the heir of a king. You don't have the right to interfere with that just because you are the brother of the king.

Just as your brother doesn't have the right to disown your children upon your death just on the basis that they don't look enough like you and he can thus not been sure that they are actually your biological children.

Stannis could be wrong in his assessment of the facts. Just as he is very wrong in his judgment who murdered Jon Arryn. But he doesn't care. He has made up his mind and he would kill Cersei's children even if they actually were Robert's children because he believes they are not.

  6 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

You will never convince me that Stannis is obligated to tell Robert of his suspicions like it's just another day, it isn't part of any feudal obligation, and it's likely to get him killed or plunge the kingdom into civil war.  If he tells Robert in the wrong way, then he gets ignored, probably banished, and the whole exercise was useless.  Given the Lannister influence at court and Robert's personality, he's 100% right to be cautious in how he says something to Robert, especially given that the Hand was just murdered for those suspicions.

If it is not Stannis obligation as a brother, councilor, and leal subject to tell his king that his wife is cuckolding him with her own twin brother and that his children aren't actually his children then I don't know what an obligation to your king actually is. What do you think the king's page or squire should do if he found the members of the royal family committing adultery? Looking the other way?

We know Ser Arryk Cargyll found Princess Rhaenyra and Prince Daemon abed together, committing adultery. He told his king. Why do you think Stannis should not?

  6 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

We have few enough examples of how lordship in Westeros works, but the harvest feast scene in ACOK Bran III is good enough.  Bran is done fealty as the proxy Lord of Winterfell, and part of that deal is he agrees to help protect his vassals.  Presumably, distributing impartial justice is part of that as well.  In other words, it's a contract; I protect and succor you, and you obey and serve me.  Goes both ways.  If one party reneges, the deal is off, as it was for Aerys when it became clear he didn't respect the legal rights of his lords.

We have no such thing for the Iron Throne and George recently stated that the Targaryens established an absolute monarchy. His words, not mine. There are no institutions of the lords or commons in the Realm, the only legal bodies of authority are the king's small council, his government and court, along with what meager bureaucracy they have across the Realm. The lords all hold land in the name of the king. They don't have the right to assemble and advise him collectively on a parliament or something like that. Great Councils are called by and presided over by the king or the Hand, and there were only three of those (as far as we know) in the history of the Targaryen reign.

I still agree that lords and even commons have the right to rebel against a tyrant, false king, mad king, etc. There are hints in that direction. But this doesn't mean that gives those rebels the right to overthrow the entire dynasty.

  6 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

We have absolutely no evidence that Cregan Stark could have done this.  He fought a war FOR a Targaryen claimant, not for a wronged party against the Targaryen dynasty.  Eddard and Robert and Jon Arryn were no longer bound by the feudal contract with the Targaryens when they rose up; Aerys' actions nullified it.  So they have no obligation to be loyal to his kids.  If Rhaegar had come out of seclusion, denounced his father, and taken up arms with the rebels, I have no doubt there would be a different outcome.  But at the end of the day, the rebels overthrew a Targaryen king and his heir (with good legal and ethical justification) - if they just put another of his kids on the throne, they open themselves up to all sorts of reprisals later on.

That is not what Robb believed, though. He thinks he has a right to fight against Joffrey but no right to dethrone, oust, or overthrow Tommen. He considers him Joffrey's rightful heir and as such the rightful king after Joffrey is overthrown.

The idea that one bad apple can undermine the claim of an entire dynasty just doesn't make a lot of sense in this world. Then no noble house nor any petty king dynasty of old would have survived for even a century.

  6 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

Again, this cannot be stressed enough; Robert and Ned, and really all of his vassals, had no obligation to Aerys or his kids.  Feudalism is a contract for a reason.  The First Blackfyre Rebellion involved a bunch of lords supporter a usurper who claimed to be from a different line than the main Targaryens (which is why he called himself Daemon Blackfyre and not Daemon Targaryen), so we have a precedent for a rebellion trying to elevate a non-"Targaryen".  The Dance was a civil war, not a rebellion.  So again, before we go any further, and in italics again for emphasis, Robert has no duty to Aerys' children, especially not after he is proclaimed king by the rebels, and it doesn't make any sense for him to do so anyway.  Should Twin have killed them?  No, put Viserys on the Wall and Dany in a septry.  But they have no divine right to rule, or anything like that.  Now that the dragons are gone, they rule with the consent of the governed.

Daemon Blackfyre may have not called himself 'Targaryen' but he was a Targaryen. Just as all the other legitimized bastards were. The Blackfyres are just a junior branch of House Targaryen that likes to bear another name.

  6 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

Oh no doubt he's a smart guy, and is already kickstarting the commercial revolution in Westeros in a way no one else is.  I just don't think those benefits are going anywhere near proportionally to his bosses.  Westerosi nobles disdain money and commercial operations, so they never think to look where the gold is coming from... which is Littlefinger borrowing it, and pocketing the income that should be paying it off.

But Robert is also spending a lot of money, no? He couldn't do that if Littlefinger didn't give him a lot of money to spend. In fact, if he sucked at his job he would be fired at once.

  6 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

It is common knowledge that Pycelle counseled Aerys to open the gates to Tywin.

It is known in certain circles but why do you think this proves Pycelle was a traitor to Aerys? Perhaps he honestly believed Tywin had come to help Aerys? Pycelle later confesses to Tyrion that this wasn't the case but we have no reason to believe that anybody believed that when Robert pardoned Pycelle shortly after the Sack.

  6 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

As for the maesters, there are plenty of hints, if you look.  "They read and write our letters, even for such lords as cannot read themselves, and who can say for a certainty that they are not twisting the words for their own ends... whenever we are weakest and most vulnerable, there they are.  Sometimes the heal us, and we are duly grateful.  When they fail, they console us in our grief, and we are grateful for that as well.... [we] make them privy to all our shame and secrets."

It's beyond question that the maesters are a massively influential order.  Having one is a great honor and sign of power.  They know all the secrets of their lords, are intimately involved in their counsels (apparently Rickard Stark gets involved with the Southron Ambitions bloc at the urging of his maester, and Wyman Manderly doesn't trust his maester because he may have residual Lannister loyalties).

Quote

There is no southron ambitions bloc, Rickard Stark himself had southron ambitions. He wanted to marry his children into noble families from the South.

The intermarriage of Stark and Baratheon and Tully, and the fostering with Jon Arryn of Ned and Robert, is the Southron Ambitions bloc.  It's just called that because we get our first hint of it as a conspiracy under that name.  It is incredibly rare for the kids of Paramount Lords to marry the kids of other Paramount Lords; the massive concentration of family ties in that short period proves the existence of the bloc.  Whether it was to unseat the king in favor of a more sane Targaryen, or just provide a kind of mutual defense pact, is up for discussion.

Quote

I don't doubt that the maesters are influential individually and even as a collective. But they have no armies. If a Grand Maester displeases his king they can't force him to keep him against the king's will. We see this when Tyrion throws Pycelle into the black cells and refuses to allow him in the Small Council after he frees him again. The Citadel does nothing about that. As far as we know they never even formally protested.

I think you are not doing enough to consider the difference between soft power and hard power.  No, the Citadel has no armies.  They have no hard power.  But they control the entire means of communication for Westeros.  They are essentially the only doctors on the continent.  They have the valuable ability to somewhat anticipate the change of seasons.  These are massive, massive instances of soft power and a ruler would be absurdly short sighted to abuse the people who hold it. And Pycelle was caught actively engaging in treason.  I'm not saying there is NO circumstance in which a Grandmaester can be replaced, merely that to do so because he was on the wrong side of a rebellion is wrong.  Again, according to the customs of Westeros, the Grandmaester (and all maesters) don't serve a person but a castle, which means they can't be on "the wrong side" of a conflict.  In theory, though obviously this may not always be true in practice.

Quote

We know Robert declared himself around the time of the Trident. It seems as if Rhaegar already knew what he was about when he had his last conversation with Jaime.

Yes, because Rhaegar has already come out of hiding/seclusion/rape vacation and is actively fighting for Aerys.  We don't actually know whether Robert has proclaimed himself at this point, but you're right it seems likely.  But the moment Rhaegar appears and doesn't renounce Aerys and find a way to support the rebels (nearly impossible, since he's the root cause of the rebellion, but still), the rebels know that they'll get no justice from the Targaryens.

Quote

That is wrong. Daemon Blackfyre started the Blackfyre rebellion. Daeron II married Mariah Martell during the reign of Baelor the Blessed. That marriage had nothing to do with the Blackfyre thing. The later marriage between Prince Maron and Princess Daenerys played a role as did the union between Sunspear and the Iron Throne that was sealed by that marriage.

Right, and that marriage pisses of a LOT of Westerosi who lost kin or friends in Daeron I's conquest.  And then Mariah Martell and Daeron II fill his royal court with a ton of Dornishmen, which further pisses off a ton of people.  Look at who supports Daemon.  Lords in the Reach, which suffered the most from occupying Dorne and the subsequent Dornish treachery.  Marcher lords, who have lost a traditional way of life and can be said to have lost their war because the Dornish have an undue amount of influence, and secondary houses that want to supplant their Lord Paramount (e.g. the Reynes).

The point being, there is a lot of resentment at how well the Dornish are treated, because the Dornish were viewed as enemies of the Realm and dishonorable to boot.  Those are the seeds of the Blackfyre Rebellion; Daemon is essentially promising a repudiation of all the favor shown to the Dornish, which is why so much of his initial support is coming from Reacher and marcher lords.

Quote

No, Robert actually tells us that he had no inclination to marry anyone after Lyanna's death and only married Cersei because Jon insisted. Those are the fact. If nobody had insisted Robert might have married no one for a couple of years until he felt inclined to pick one, and he certainly would have found one.

Robert is a moron, and whatever his personal inclinations, he HAS to marry someone.  He's the head of a new dynasty, and his MOST important job is producing an heir.  He has to marry someone.  And I am sure Jon Arryn wanted to cement closer ties to Tywin, to have him be an active supporter of the Crown instead of a passive player in the realm (for his money, I'm sure).  But even Jon Arryn must have known that Tywin was never going to be welcomed back by the Targaryens.  The Lannisters have a lot to offer, politically, and I don't doubt Jon Arryn wanted to tap into that, but it wasn't to keep him from backing an external invasion.  It was to help make the Realm cohere together more effectively under a new dynasty.  There is a difference.

Quote

That is also not really true. Queen Rhaenys arranged a lot of marriages to conciliate the lords of the Realm

Many of which were highly resented, and none of which were with Targaryens.  She's trying to bind the realm together with bonds of marriage, she's not offering a royal bride/husband.

Quote

 and Aegon the Conqueror married his son Prince Maegor to Ceryse Hightower to placate the High Septon.

Again, which is to justify his own marriages.  Also, worth pointing out that the High Septon had acclaimed his as king instead of resisting his rule, so in many ways this is a reward for service more than it is "placating" anyone, or a bribe.

Quote

And there are other such marriages or promises for such marriages. Princess Rhaelle marrying Ormund Baratheon, Cregan Stark getting the promise of a Targaryen marriage, Prince Aemond promising to marry a daughter of Borros Baratheon, etc.

Princess Rhaelle marries Ormund to make up for the slight of Prince Duncan spurning Ormund's sister in favor of Jenny of Oldstones.  Cregan Stark gets a Targaryen princess as a reward (or part of a bargain, I guess) for joining the blacks.  Ditto Borros Baratheon.  Note that this is coalition building with neutral parties, and not defeated parties, which is important.  Marriages are chips in the great game; you might spend one to bring in an ally, but almost certainly not to a defeated foe.  Whch again, is why the marriage of Daeron II and Mariah Martell was so controversial; Daeron I won his Conquest, was betrayed in an extremely illegal and unethical manner (respecting ambassadors and a flag of truce is basically the primary rule of international diplomacy), and as a result Dorne gets the most plum prize in the entire kingdom; a royal marriage (or to-be royal marriage).  That was my point about Daemon; this preferential treatment of a "defeated" and dishonorable foe generates so much resentment that it nearly brings down the monarchy.

Quote

The fact that Tyrells and the Lannisters both are as powerful as they are is a reason why it would have been wise of Robert to keep them close. He did that with Tywin but he could just as well have done it with Mace.

Again, there is a major difference between Tywin and Mace, which is that Tywin took up arms for Robert (however late) and Mace took up arms against him.  And the subsequent marriage of Stannis to a Florent proves my point; Jon Arryn isn't appeasing Mace Tyrell, he's WARNING him.  Dynastically speaking, that's a warning shot that says "toe the line or I'll replace you with someone with a better blood claim to Highgarden".

[cpg2016]

8 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The loss of the dragons reduced the direct power the Targaryens had over their kingdom but the power of the lords did not increase. Custom and tradition established during the dragon days had established the Targaryen kings as semi-divine absolutist kings. They had no right to make their voice heard. No parliament, no Estates-General, no anything. The only way for a lord to gain power was to suck up to the king and get named to the Small Council. The great houses hold a lot of power in the territories they control but their power comes from the king, too. In the North this is a lot of personal power because of the remoteness but in the South things should be different.

And we also know that only the king can make new lords or attaint lords. If you think about that the power of the great houses is very restricted. They have no opportunity to reward their clients by making them lords, they merely manage the system the king set in place as his officials. Yes, their own lordships and titles are hereditary but if a lord misbehaves he can quickly lose honors, lands, titles, etc.

The only way a lord has to defend himself against royal whims is to start an open rebellion. He has no other option.

 

Sorry for the multiple responses, only just seeing this.

First off, the concept of a parliament means more to an absolute monarchy than it does to a a feudal one.  I'm not sure you understand the difference.  There is no parliament or Estates-General in a feudal system, because they lords themselves ARE the council of the governed or whatever you want to call it.

Parliament, and the Estates General, were both formed for one specific purpose, which was so that the King of England and France, respectively, could ask their populace for taxes in excess of their feudal obligations.  That's it.  That they evolved into anything else reflects one simple fact; feudal contracts are fixed amounts, and therefore as time goes by the value of the rents declines in real terms, because the kings had more expenses as they centralized their power, and once the price revolution kicks off, an eroding value of currency.  So they need new revenues outside the purview of the feudal relationship.  The lords and gentry demand increased rights in return for those dollars.  And so on and so forth, and eventually you have the Parliaments and Estates General of early modern Europe.  That's it.  You are conflating two entirely different political systems.

And yes, the way for a lord to gain influence and power in a feudal system is to get close to the monarch.  Literally, as close as possible, which is why food taster and ass-wiper were such important and sought after posts (they had nicer titles than that, obviously).  And lords can absolutely subinfuedate new lords; look at Tytos Lannister and the Cleganes.

Aegon was never considered semi-divine.  His monarchy is based on draconic power and that's that.  Nobles of Valyrian descent are considered semi-magical, perhaps, because of their close association with dragons, and future monarchs are anointed by the Faith, but that isn't the same as divinity in the sense that, say, Roman Emperors were routinely deified.

And it is highly debatable whether the king can take away lands.  For rebellion, sure (such as the Peakes).  And honors and titles which are granted by the king, can obviously be taken away.  But I'm not sure we have many cases of the king revoking lands and castles at random, and when we do, it's usually with the point that this is a massive over-extension of the king's authority.

As for the last point, there is obviously a court system in place, both secular and religious.  Rickard Stark obviously believes there is a reason for him to go to King's Landing for a trial, and at least theoretically he'll be judged impartially and gain redress, or he wouldn't go.  The Trials by Seven are also a way to protect against royal whim or even reasonable royal judgement (Tyrion would have gotten off scot free had Oberyn won).  So saying it's rebellion or bust is obviously false.  Robert's Rebellion doesn't begin when Rhaegar kidnaps Lyanna, or even when Aerys imprisons Brandon, but when Aerys makes a mockery of the justice system by burning Rickard alive and then calling for the heads of two innocent men.

[Jaak]

4 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

This is wrong, you are wrong, and this is not a debate worth having.  Feudalism is about reciprocal obligations and duties of lord and vassal.  There was a concept that kingship was divinely ordained, but the theory of absolute monarchy was centuries away.  Absolutism and feudalism are two different political structures, full stop.  Louis XIV was not a feudal monarch.

The theory of reciprocal obligations and duties was also not so thoroughly described.

4 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

You are of course correct that the authority of the King varied widely depending on the king, the country, and the time period.  But your point about the Magna Carta is foolish.  The Magna Carta just enshrined in writing a set of duties and obligations that previously existed.

No. Magna Carta created the duties from thin air and general but so far illegal desires.

England between 1066 and 1215 was an absolute monarchy.

William the Bastard did, within a few years, dispossess almost the whole English nation. By 1086, just 2 of the 170 barons were English.

Many of the Englishmen were dispossessed for fighting for Harold. But a lot did survive Hastings, bent knee, kept their lands for a few years - and were then dispossessed. As mentioned, just 2 barons remained.

A 12th century French nobleman in England could not openly deny that the King could dispossess a lord for backing a widespread rebellion or usurpation - because if he claimed that, by what right was he holding his own lands rather than return them to the heirs of their pre-Hastings English owners? Yet obviously they were not happy to lose their lands for supporting William Rufus against Robert Curthose, or for supporting Stephen against Matilda.

It took till 1215 that the French nobles in England dared rise in their own name rather than that of a dynastic claimant (Curthose against his father and brothers, Maud and Henry II against Stephen, Henry II-s sons against father) and pronounce justifications to the act.

4 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

French kings were routinely elected by the nobility after the demise of the Carolingian dynasty with Charles the Simple's imprisonment.  Obviously the Holy Roman Emperors were elected by the most powerful magnates of the realm, even if in practice the Habsburgs came to increasingly dominate this process by the end of the medieval period.  

Yet elections in France were not repeated after 987.

4 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

So, to reiterate - when it was thought that kings were not fulfilling their duties to their vassals, the vassals deposed them and installed new kings.  Obviously politics and personal advancement played a huge rule in this as well and we shouldn't downplay the opportunism that played such a huge role in determining who took whose side, but at the end of the day it's clear that feudal political communities recognized that kingship was dependent on fulfillment of obligations.

No king of France was deposed between 987 and 1589.

[Lord Varys]

4 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

We don't know anything about Stannis' mission.  I would wager that he has authority over the royal fleet in the King's absence.  Since Robert doesn't seem too peeved that he's gone off with a lot of the fleet, I would think this is within the scope of his authority.  And we don't know what he was doing on Dragonstone.  By which I mean, he may have been patrolling the Narrow Sea for piracy, etc, he just isn't moving anywhere en masse.

We know he closed his ports and gathered sellsails as soon as he arrived there. He wasn't on any mission for Robert in the year he spent there unless you are suggesting that mission was that he sat around on Dragonstone.

4 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

And if he's on no mission, his place is probably at court, yes.  Unfortunately, Kings Landing isn't "court".  Wherever Robert is, is where the court is.  And no one else goes with Robert either, so it isn't unusual that Stannis isn't there.

That has nothing to do with the topic. Stannis certainly could have accompanied Robert to Winterfell. But he didn't. Either Robert gave him an order to stay in KL or he didn't care whether he came or not. But he didn't give him leave to go to Dragonstone with the royal fleet.

4 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

And we DO know Stannis well enough to know whether he's break the law.  He's a strict legalist.  He betrays Aerys only because he believes that older laws, blood laws, should precede those of legal rights.  Something ALL Westerosi nobles believe, which is why marriage alliances exist, because ties of blood ring truer than ties of law (for better or worse).  He explicitly says it was the hardest choosing of his life, despite the tyrannical nature of Aerys' rule, the obvious justice of Robert's cause, and the fact that it's his own brother.

That is what he says, yes. But we also do know he used a sorceress to murder his other brother. Nobody says he wanted to kill Robert but it is quite clear he let him die in the sense that he didn't do anything to stop Cersei. If Cersei can kill Jon Arryn and cuckold his brother she certainly is also capable of killing Robert if that's what's necessary to keep her secret.

4 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

Why is it his duty?  And if the manner in which he tells Robert ensures that Robert won't listen, has he actually done is duty?  Cersei tells Robert he is too fat to participate in the Tourney of the Hand melee (which is true, so... she is a good subject according to you), but she does it because she wants to goad him to participate and be killed (so she's a traitor).  See?  It is not so clear cut whether merely telling the truth is good service.  Good intentions mean more than mere honesty sometimes, and if Stannis is looking for a proper way to tell Robert, then he is providing loyal service.

I never said Cersei was a good subject. She plotted to kill her king and husband and finally succeeded. Stannis should have told Robert not only if we judge him by his own standards (which I do) but also by any concept you can have an affectionate sibling relationship.

I'd want my brother to tell me if my wife was cuckolding me or may have killed one of my best friends. Wouldn't you?

4 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

I'm not saying that Robert isn't profligate and beggaring the realm.  But Littlefinger is absurdly wealthy, despite having no means of income.  My theory is that he's skimming a lot of money off the top of the royal revenues.  So if the Crown is 6,000,000 dragons in debt, maybe 1,000,000 of that is due to Littlefinger's corruption (making that number up, but it's obviously extremely substantial).  That is a very meaningful sum of money.  He has enough money to go around buying up the huge debts of nobles in the Vale, throw expensive feasts and parties, all without breaking a sweat in the finances department.  So yeah... I think the massive Crown debt is a combination of both Robert's excess and Littlefinger's corruption.  Not just one or the other.

Yeah, he is likely to embezzle the Crown in a number of ways. The Crown is paying officials that don't exist and we Littlefinger also practiced simony, selling treasury offices to the highest bidder. And I'm pretty sure he is competent enough to make huge revenues from the investments he made, either with his own or stolen money.

4 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

Please quote.  Because what the text states is that Aegon I created a feudal monarchy backed by the absolute power of the dragons, which is very different than an absolute monarchy.  And lords holding land in the name of the king IS feudalism.

It is from a report from George's last appearance in Mexico: https://www.reddit.com/r/Fantasy/comments/5ggsle/grrms_visit_to_mexico_highlightsmy_experience/

4 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

And since Great Councils have disinherited superior claimants in favor of inferior claimants, it's clear that merely having the best blood claim is no guarantee of succession.  So Robert has legal basis on those grounds, even if he really is establishing a new dynasty through conquest.  Both IRL and IOTL, dynasties are overthrown if they lose the consent of the governed (the governed being the political elite).

One interpretation of the deliberations of the first Great Council reads that a man descended from a king through the female line cannot inherit the Iron Throne. That is what Robert did.

Robert usurped the throne after a successful rebellion.

4 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

The intermarriage of Stark and Baratheon and Tully, and the fostering with Jon Arryn of Ned and Robert, is the Southron Ambitions bloc.  It's just called that because we get our first hint of it as a conspiracy under that name.  It is incredibly rare for the kids of Paramount Lords to marry the kids of other Paramount Lords; the massive concentration of family ties in that short period proves the existence of the bloc.  Whether it was to unseat the king in favor of a more sane Targaryen, or just provide a kind of mutual defense pact, is up for discussion.

Those things don't seem to inherently connected, though. Robert wanted Lyanna. He approached Lord Rickard about that through Ned, and it was a love match on his part. Hoster was looking for very prestigious marriages for his family members (a Redwyne for Brynden, Brandon for Cat, Jaime for Lysa) just as Tywin was. And Rickard had such ambitions, too. Fostering your children with powerful lords is also not uncommon, and marriages can develop from that.

4 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

I think you are not doing enough to consider the difference between soft power and hard power.  No, the Citadel has no armies.  They have no hard power.  But they control the entire means of communication for Westeros.  They are essentially the only doctors on the continent.  They have the valuable ability to somewhat anticipate the change of seasons.  These are massive, massive instances of soft power and a ruler would be absurdly short sighted to abuse the people who hold it. And Pycelle was caught actively engaging in treason.  I'm not saying there is NO circumstance in which a Grandmaester can be replaced, merely that to do so because he was on the wrong side of a rebellion is wrong.  Again, according to the customs of Westeros, the Grandmaester (and all maesters) don't serve a person but a castle, which means they can't be on "the wrong side" of a conflict.  In theory, though obviously this may not always be true in practice.

We have simply no reason to believe the Citadel has any power to force a king to keep or take a certain Grand Maester. The is more powerful.

4 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

Right, and that marriage pisses of a LOT of Westerosi who lost kin or friends in Daeron I's conquest.  And then Mariah Martell and Daeron II fill his royal court with a ton of Dornishmen, which further pisses off a ton of people.  Look at who supports Daemon.  Lords in the Reach, which suffered the most from occupying Dorne and the subsequent Dornish treachery.  Marcher lords, who have lost a traditional way of life and can be said to have lost their war because the Dornish have an undue amount of influence, and secondary houses that want to supplant their Lord Paramount (e.g. the Reynes).

Sure, but without Daemon Blackfyre rebelling they wouldn't have rebelled. It was his doing, his and Bittersteel's.

4 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

Robert is a moron, and whatever his personal inclinations, he HAS to marry someone.  He's the head of a new dynasty, and his MOST important job is producing an heir.  He has to marry someone.  And I am sure Jon Arryn wanted to cement closer ties to Tywin, to have him be an active supporter of the Crown instead of a passive player in the realm (for his money, I'm sure).  But even Jon Arryn must have known that Tywin was never going to be welcomed back by the Targaryens.  The Lannisters have a lot to offer, politically, and I don't doubt Jon Arryn wanted to tap into that, but it wasn't to keep him from backing an external invasion.  It was to help make the Realm cohere together more effectively under a new dynasty.  There is a difference.

Sorry, your ideas what Jon Arryn must or would have thought or known about Tywin don't matter. What matters is what we know. Perhaps Jon only used those arguments to convince Robert, perhaps not. But that's what he told Robert. That he had to marry Cersei to be sure Tywin would stand with him against the Targaryens.

And no, if Robert had not wanted to marry he could have refused to marry. He had two younger brothers as heirs presumptive. It wouldn't have been wise but certainly possible.

4 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

First off, the concept of a parliament means more to an absolute monarchy than it does to a a feudal one.  I'm not sure you understand the difference.  There is no parliament or Estates-General in a feudal system, because they lords themselves ARE the council of the governed or whatever you want to call it.

Well, such an informal council doesn't exist in Westeros, either. No king asks the opinion of his lords in anything.

4 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

Parliament, and the Estates General, were both formed for one specific purpose, which was so that the King of England and France, respectively, could ask their populace for taxes in excess of their feudal obligations.  That's it.  That they evolved into anything else reflects one simple fact; feudal contracts are fixed amounts, and therefore as time goes by the value of the rents declines in real terms, because the kings had more expenses as they centralized their power, and once the price revolution kicks off, an eroding value of currency.  So they need new revenues outside the purview of the feudal relationship.  The lords and gentry demand increased rights in return for those dollars.  And so on and so forth, and eventually you have the Parliaments and Estates General of early modern Europe.  That's it.  You are conflating two entirely different political systems.

Those institutions grew out of earlier informal institutions, I know that. But no such institutions - formal or informal - do exist in Westeros.

4 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

And yes, the way for a lord to gain influence and power in a feudal system is to get close to the monarch.  Literally, as close as possible, which is why food taster and ass-wiper were such important and sought after posts (they had nicer titles than that, obviously).  And lords can absolutely subinfuedate new lords; look at Tytos Lannister and the Cleganes.

The Cleganes aren't lords. They are landed knights. It is Ser Gregor, not Lord Gregor. Only kings can make lords.

4 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

Aegon was never considered semi-divine.  His monarchy is based on draconic power and that's that.  Nobles of Valyrian descent are considered semi-magical, perhaps, because of their close association with dragons, and future monarchs are anointed by the Faith, but that isn't the same as divinity in the sense that, say, Roman Emperors were routinely deified.

We read the talk about the semi-divine beauty in the appendices of the first book. And their special status is quite clear. The whole incest thing shows they were considered as being above the laws of gods and more than, say, the Baratheon dynasty is. Although Robert certainly could also have pushed for the incest thing if he had wanted to.

4 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

And it is highly debatable whether the king can take away lands.  For rebellion, sure (such as the Peakes).  And honors and titles which are granted by the king, can obviously be taken away.  But I'm not sure we have many cases of the king revoking lands and castles at random, and when we do, it's usually with the point that this is a massive over-extension of the king's authority.

If you read Gyldayn's history of the Conquest carefully it is quite clear that the symbolic actions there indicate that the former kings receive all the lands and titles from Aegon after their submission. What is given can be taken away. And we know what Aegon IV did on his many whims. He didn't have any dragons but still absolute power.

4 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

As for the last point, there is obviously a court system in place, both secular and religious.  Rickard Stark obviously believes there is a reason for him to go to King's Landing for a trial, and at least theoretically he'll be judged impartially and gain redress, or he wouldn't go.  The Trials by Seven are also a way to protect against royal whim or even reasonable royal judgement (Tyrion would have gotten off scot free had Oberyn won).  So saying it's rebellion or bust is obviously false.  Robert's Rebellion doesn't begin when Rhaegar kidnaps Lyanna, or even when Aerys imprisons Brandon, but when Aerys makes a mockery of the justice system by burning Rickard alive and then calling for the heads of two innocent men.

It is calling for the heads of two innocent men. And it is not those men rebelling but Jon Arryn.

[Jaak]

54 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

We know he closed his ports and gathered sellsails as soon as he arrived there. He wasn't on any mission for Robert in the year he spent there unless you are suggesting that mission was that he sat around on Dragonstone.

That has nothing to do with the topic. Stannis certainly could have accompanied Robert to Winterfell. But he didn't. Either Robert gave him an order to stay in KL or he didn't care whether he came or not. But he didn't give him leave to go to Dragonstone with the royal fleet.

And Robert appears to have been happy to let Stannis sulk on Dragonstone and do something more or less brave with his ships. Would Stannis have refused a raven from Robert asking Stannis to explain his plans?

54 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Yeah, he is likely to embezzle the Crown in a number of ways. The Crown is paying officials that don't exist and we Littlefinger also practiced simony, selling treasury offices to the highest bidder.

And the dungeons have not had a septon since Baelor the Blessed. It was not Petyr Baelish collecting septon´s salary in times of Baelor Breakspear.

54 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Those institutions grew out of earlier informal institutions, I know that. But no such institutions - formal or informal - do exist in Westeros.

Not Estates General of France. These were a new thing in 1302.

Basically, the French nobility did not hold large meetings between 987 and 1302. France was a weak kingdom - but the high nobles like Count of Flanders, Duke of Normandy or Count of Toulouse did not gather in Parliament to vote against King. They stayed in their respective homes, ignored or defied King when they did not like his decisions, and rarely showed up in court.

[Lord Varys]

16 minutes ago, Jaak said:

And Robert appears to have been happy to let Stannis sulk on Dragonstone and do something more or less brave with his ships. Would Stannis have refused a raven from Robert asking Stannis to explain his plans?

Well, he most likely read all the letters he received. He just never wrote a reply. If Robert had commanded him to explain his intentions or return to court he may have come. Or not. We don't know.

But this thing is gotten way too overcomplicated. My whole point is that Stannis' actions could be seen as treason by Robert if he had wanted to see them this way. Stannis took the fleet without his leave and he did not return to take up his seat again. Since no new Master of Ships was appointed we can be sure that Stannis did not resign. As Master of Ships and member of the Small Council he had a duty to his king and the Realm. A duty he neglected, even if we ignore what he thought he knew and kept from his king. His king could have punished him for that.

And his king could certainly have executed him for withholding the information he believed he had about the treason of the queen and the murder of the Hand. If Robert had found out what Stannis thought he knew after he learned what Cersei had done he most likely wouldn't have treated Stannis much better than he would have treated Cersei.

16 minutes ago, Jaak said:

And the dungeons have not had a septon since Baelor the Blessed. It was not Petyr Baelish collecting septon´s salary in times of Baelor Breakspear.

Not sure if I understand you here.

16 minutes ago, Jaak said:

Not Estates General of France. These were a new thing in 1302.

Basically, the French nobility did not hold large meetings between 987 and 1302. France was a weak kingdom - but the high nobles like Count of Flanders, Duke of Normandy or Count of Toulouse did not gather in Parliament to vote against King. They stayed in their respective homes, ignored or defied King when they did not like his decisions, and rarely showed up in court.

Well, okay, I'm not really an expert on French medieval history. The point just was that there is nothing like a parliament, Estates-General, or Reichstag in the Seven Kingdoms. Those are all institutions that were created or evolved in the middle ages (and later on, if the monarchy wasn't disbanded).

In Westeros, a lord has no right to advise or demand anything from his king simply by virtue of being a lord. Not even a great lord. The Lord of Casterly Rock cannot show up at court and demand that the king listen to his advice just because he is the Lord of Casterly Rock. In fact, it seems that especially the great lords who once ruled as king were sidelined and kept at arm's length by the Targaryens in the first centuries.

The Hightowers and Arryns got their royal marriages but aside from Alicent Hightower none of those marriages involved a king's immediate heirs. And in the entire 1st century the main power base of the Targaryens rested on their own men - chiefly the Velaryons and Baratheons, followed by those houses who came to Aegon's cause very early (the Rosbys, Stokeworths, Darklyns, and Mootons), especially House Tully.

Only in the 3rd century began the Targaryens to really care about including the the great houses into their inner circle.

[Lord Wraith]

6 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

We know he closed his ports and gathered sellsails as soon as he arrived there. He wasn't on any mission for Robert in the year he spent there unless you are suggesting that mission was that he sat around on Dragonstone.

Yup its almost like he was preparing for Robert to die and war.

[Lord Varys]

5 hours ago, Lord Wraith said:

Yup its almost like he was preparing for Robert to die and war.

That is what he did. If anybody would do this to Stannis he would burn them alive. But he could do that to Robert because he was pissed. That is his double standard. There are different rules for him then there are for others. Stannis would have executed anyone who treated him in the same manner as he treated Robert.

We also see this kind of thing with the different treatment of Alester Florent and Davos. Davos intended to murder Melisandre. He should have burned for that. The only reason he did not was because Stannis liked the man. But he did not like his wife's uncle. Lord Alester was his Hand and as such the man had the right to speak with the King's Voice in the king's absence. Stannis refused to talk to anyone but Melisandre and received no one but her after the Blackwater. The day-to-day management of Dragonstone lay in the hands of Alester and Selyse. Alester had no intention to betray his king, he just wanted to make peace. He most likely would have talked with Stannis about his offer to Tywin if the man had received him but he did not. And once it was clear that Stannis did not intend to bend the knee or marry his daughter to Tommen this thing was over. No lasting harm was done. So why did Stannis burn this poor in-law of his anyway? He sure as hell had the right to dismiss the man as his Hand and even exclude him from his councils or banish him but certainly not executing him.

[Jaak]

15 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Not sure if I understand you here.

That that particular corruption scheme - payroll of nonexistent workers - long predated Petyr.

15 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, okay, I'm not really an expert on French medieval history. The point just was that there is nothing like a parliament, Estates-General, or Reichstag in the Seven Kingdoms. Those are all institutions that were created or evolved in the middle ages (and later on, if the monarchy wasn't disbanded).

And my point is that they were created in Middle Ages. France before 1302 had no Estates General either. 13th century France was also Middle Ages.

15 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

In Westeros, a lord has no right to advise or demand anything from his king simply by virtue of being a lord. Not even a great lord. The Lord of Casterly Rock cannot show up at court and demand that the king listen to his advice just because he is the Lord of Casterly Rock. In fact, it seems that especially the great lords who once ruled as king were sidelined and kept at arm's length by the Targaryens in the first centuries.

The Hightowers and Arryns got their royal marriages but aside from Alicent Hightower none of those marriages involved a king's immediate heirs. And in the entire 1st century the main power base of the Targaryens rested on their own men - chiefly the Velaryons and Baratheons, followed by those houses who came to Aegon's cause very early (the Rosbys, Stokeworths, Darklyns, and Mootons), especially House Tully.

Only in the 3rd century began the Targaryens to really care about including the the great houses into their inner circle.

Ditto about France. Louis the Fat, Philip August or Saint Louis were surrounded by their own men and household counsellors. Great lords were not invited to meet at court, rarely showed up and if they did had no entitlement to "advise" - they were outsiders to negotiate with, according to advice of the household councillors.

[Frey Kings]

Keep in mind the Targaryen King Blood Line is not pure... they have intermarried with Blackwoods, Velaryons (multiple times) ((yes I know they are still Valaryian)), Martells, Probably more 

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, Jaak said:

That that particular corruption scheme - payroll of nonexistent workers - long predated Petyr.

I think you are confusing things. You are talking about the Lord Confessor, are you not? That office is simply vacant since the reign of Daeron II, nothing indicates that the Crown paid wages for a Lord Confessor. Or are you talking about something else.

1 hour ago, Jaak said:

And my point is that they were created in Middle Ages. France before 1302 had no Estates General either. 13th century France was also Middle Ages.

Well, then we are in agreement there.

1 hour ago, Jaak said:

Ditto about France. Louis the Fat, Philip August or Saint Louis were surrounded by their own men and household counsellors. Great lords were not invited to meet at court, rarely showed up and if they did had no entitlement to "advise" - they were outsiders to negotiate with, according to advice of the household councillors.

Well, in earlier times the great noblemen of the kingdom had a voice in its governance simply by right of who they were. Thus were the things in the Merovingian and Carolingian days.

And it may very well be that the great houses of the Seven Kingdoms - the most powerful houses in the independent kingdoms - also had a voice in the governance of the Reach, or the West, or the Vale, etc. but Aegon and his successor made no such concessions to the lords after the Conquest. They could keep their castles and lands, and most likely retain quite a lot of power over the people on their lands, but they had no voice at court.

[Lion of the West]

On 2017-06-16 at 1:13 AM, Lord Varys said:

They seemed to have tried (Daeron and Jace apparently had the same wetwurse) but Alicent had already poisoned her other children against Rhaenyra. It is said that Aegon and Rhaenyra didn't get along when he was six and she sixteen. It makes sense for them to have little in common considering the different gender and the age gap, but a six-year-old boy is not all that likely to dislike his sister who is ten years older unless an adult is involved somehow. Could have been Alicent, Otto, one of his Hightower uncles, etc.

There's no reason to look beyond the two of them there. Sixteen is not an age of great maturity and Rhaenyra would have known that many people. including Aegon's mother, wanted Aegon to succeed in Rhaenyra's place. Combine an immature disposition (as I said sixteen is not an age of great maturity) with hostility between Rhaenyra and Alicent and you might get hostility from Rhaenyra that Aegon picks up and so you get two people who dislikes each other. And to that its not unlikely that Rhaenyra, used to be the sole focus of attention by father, uncle and court, would dislike that she suddenly had competition for these things. And like I said, sixteen is not an age of maturity so while a more mature Rhaenyra could easily have bonded with Aegon, sixteen years old don't tend in my experience to act that way.

Quote

But things could have still worked out. If Rhaenyra had had daughters instead of sons they could have wed Aegon and Aemond, and then they could have made those pairs Rhaenyra's heirs, reuniting the lines without any difficulty and actually making them all a big family again. Alicent and Otto should have had no trouble to wait a little while longer for the Iron Throne.

Could be but I don't think so. Rhaenyra would presumably have wanted her daughter to succeed her without making common cause with a part of the family that she disliked and was disliked by. Not to mention that Daemon is unlikely to have accepted to see Otto's grandchildren take the throne, or even sit beside it.

I think there were to many conflicts that ran to deep to avoid some kind of conflict between Rhaenyra and Alicent's sides of the family.

Quote

Well, perhaps he would have tried to spare the lives of the younger children. Joff would most likely have to go considering that he had been crowned (and was a prick). And Stannis, well, it would have depended how the battle had gone and whether Stannis was captured alive. One assumes that Renly would have talked to him one last time before making up his mind.

Perhaps he would, but I don't think so. Renly does not strike me as the kind of guy to not step over the corpses of children to reach his goals as those children would be focal points for resistance against him, and their eventual children could compete with Renly's offspring for the throne. People with claims are dangerous to people with power.

In regards to Stannis there's no way that Stannis would make it out of there alive if Renly won. I don't see how Renly can elevate a defeated enemy without losing much in the PR, and Renly is all about PR, for why care to join him when his enemies are given the good stuff? And a conversation between them would be like their parley. Renly would smear his victory in Stannis' face and Stannis would refuse to bend an inch, thus making the whole excerise futile.

Quote

We'll have to wait and see. But I don't think Tyrion loves Jaime enough to betray anyone for him. But he might be pretty keen to spare his life he can. His hatred of his siblings will have cooled down considerably by the time he comes back to Westeros. Or at least that's what I expect.

I will agree that we'll have to wait. The reason that I think that it might come around is that not everyone in Daenaerys' camp is likely to be as open-minded as her and considering that she's gathering support against a Lannister-supported Baratheon reign, a man who is a dwarf, a kinslayer and a Lannister to that, could well invoke less that positive reactions from various people who are of influence in Daenaerys' side, like Barristan Selmy for instance or Victorion, provided that Victarion manages to get to speak with Danaerys without her calling for his head. So i don't think that the grass will be much greener on the other side for Tyrion and that's the reason that he might turn his coat once more to try and patch things up with one of the few people he knows has treated him well in the past.

Quote

Rhaenyra was only nine years old by the time Viserys I married Alicent. She was a princess, not a queen. And one could argue that the Realm always needs a queen. 

Well, considering that the king is aboslute, I don't know why a queen would be an aboslute necessity beyond providing heirs. Now in the real medieval world a good queen was vital for any king and my country has had queens who ruled better than their husbands or even created grand realms that their male heirs squandered, but in Westeros there seems to have been a great decline in the influence of queens. We know that Aegon's sister-wives were important and so was Alysanne and then Alicent. But beyond that, the only queens, who were consorts of kings so I'm not counting Rhaenyra here since she was a ruling queen, that seems to have acted with authority and agenda in public affairs is to my knowledge, Cersei. So between Cersei and Alicent there's very little on queens wielding much public power or taking part in political affairs.

Quote

Back then the great houses weren't really all that important a factor. Maegor taking a second wife without the permission of the king and the Faith is what begins the great rebellion against Aenys I and the Targaryens in general. But if we consider the power the Targaryens had at that time and the fact that kings had quite often set aside wives in the past and that marriages also can be annulled (and a barren wife might have been a pretext for an annulment) we can be pretty sure that Aenys I and the Faith would have accommodated Maegor if he had been married to any other woman.

You have a point in that the Great Houses were not as important with living dragons around.

Quote

It is very telling that his second wedding is a secret wedding, that he and Visenya don't even inform Aenys I and the world until after the fact. TSotD makes it very clear that Maegor didn't want a second wife in bigamist or polygamist way. He declared that Ceryse was barren and wanted a new wife who could give him sons. That was the whole point. Later he, Alys, and Tyanna apparently lived together in a menage à trois until Maegor also married Tyanna but that only happened after he was king.

Pretty much so.

Quote

His younger siblings didn't rebel against him, I grant you that. But Stannis and Renly did. And they were the only members of the extended royal family around. The Lannisters are not part of it.

Yet even so we can see that the problem within House Baratheon lies in conflict over who should be part of inner circle at court, rather similar to the Dance of the Dragons if you ask me. With Robert, and through his children, the Lannisters hanged on to power, while Renly wanted to maintain his position which would necessitate the removed of the Lannisters and their hooks in the capital due to Renly knowing that with power shifting hands, he would be furthe and further removed from central power. Thus Renly allied with the Tyrells who had identical ambitions as the Lannisters and were thus competition to the Lions. In regards to Stannis it was because he felt that Robert was doing a lousy job and that Robert's children were not his own.

Quote

But I don't care about the 'internal Baratheon part', I care about the entire War of the Five Kings and its present aftermath. The Realm wasn't as fractured as it is now since before the Conquest.

The problem is that you fail to differentiate between the core and marginal parts of the conflict. The core of the conflict, the conflict which will utimately decide the marginal conflicts. is within House Baratheon and overshadow both separatist struggles by far.

The two separatist struggles are a very specific reason and motiviation, reasons not easily exported to other parts that are not affect in the same way. Thus there's really no way that I can see in how the desire to become independent can be brought to new parts of Westeros and thus strenghten that movement. The North and Riverlands are eager for independence because of conflicts and blood shed between Lannister and Stark and with a Lannister-puppet on the throne, further driven by northern exceptionalistic feelings together with Riverland dependence on the North's military aid. This is a very complex scenario which leads to this solution, much more complex than anything seen in the Dance of the Blackfyre when its essentially "I like this person more than that person for various reasons". It would take similarly set of events to convince the Vale or Reach that they should really strive for independence rather than just support someone more favorable to them to take the Iron Throne. But most importantly the separatist movements lacks the power to force peace on the Iron Throne. Robb can't threaten Lannisport, Casterly Rock or King's Landing, and no more threaten Highgarden or Storm¨'s End if Renly had won, while Renly can absolutely threaten the Riverlands and have a good chance to threaten the eastern coast of the North as well.

And this leads us to the core conflict, namely over the Iron Throne. As seen in the developments in the books we see that whoever wins the core conflict will gather the power of South to him, and thus stand with overwhelming power to bring back both groups of separatists into the realm. As such Renly or Joffrey or Stannis who takes the throne will command power to destroy the separatists. We can clearly see the despair that comes in Harrenhall when it is learned that Highgarden has joined with Joffrey. And this situation would come regardless of who won of Renly or Joffrey, which means that the separatists lives on borrowed time and won't survive the settlement of the core conflict over the Iron Throne. That is the importance of the internal Baratheon conflict over the other parts of the war.

Quote

Maegor faced rebellions but those rebel movements apparently all (or perhaps only mostly all) united behind Jaehaerys I. This wasn't the same as the plotting and politicking that's going on in the series. There everybody has his or her own agenda whereas those earlier conflicts seem to have been pretty straightforward.

I think that you are mistaken in this as well. Remember that peace was done between the crown and the Faith Militant after Jaehaerys had won the crown. This shows to me that there's at least two conflicts going on. One within House Targaryen and one between House Targaryen and the Faith Miliant and the two of them are settled separately.

Quote

Dalton was just one guy. And he was put down during the Regency of Aegon III. He sure as hell would have behaved had Rhaenyra won and had had enough dragonriders left to pay him a visit. The fact that Dalton did no crown himself is exactly the point I'm trying to make. That is the difference.

Dalton was a Lord Paramount of the Iron Islands and give direction to the Ironmen. Given the earlier behavior of the Greyjoys and Ironmen, I don't find it odd it Dalton would not have been eager to give up his personal paradise of reaving, dragons or not. A man like Quellon Greyjoy would probably have headed the call from King's Landing but he was not a creature of the Old Way like Dalton was.

Quote

Balon Greyjoy stole a huge chunk of the Realm in the Iron Islands themselves as well as in the North. He might have been happy with a weak child king on the Iron Throne but his actions were not to Joff's or Tommen's benefit.

Not really. Balon tried to steal a huge chunk of of the realm and failed miserable and his son squandered a golden chance to become the her of the war. And I dare say that given how Balon attacked the home of another group of rebels I don't see how Balon's actions were not to great benefit for Joffrey and Tommen. Its always to your benefit when your enemies attack each other.

Quote

No, Robert's rule was weak. A strong king keeps his house in order just as well as his own realm. Robert did none of that. He should not have given such large lordships to his brothers, he shouldn't have pardoned Balon Greyjoy (in fact, he should have extinguished that house and burned the Iron Fleet), and he should have cared about the government of his kingdom.

No. Robert's rule was unwise but strong. In fact there are many reasons to draw parallels between Robert and Viserys in that both men ruled through their reigns successfully but failed to set things up for their heirs. And do you think that Viserys I was weak? I dare say that you don't think that he was a weak king regardless of how he mismanaged his House and how he failed to set things into place for his heir.

In regards to Robert's brothers that proved to be a mistake, yes.

And in regards to the Greyjoy, Robert's generosity had worked well before. It didn't work with Balon but I the problem with the Greyjoys is that if Balon is kept in place, it will be a guy with a memory of being smacked around. If someone new takes the position it might work better, or they might feel they would make a better go at it than Balon and so rebel themselves. And given the semi-isolated nature of the Iron Islands I don't think that there may per necessity have been knowledge in Robert's council on the situation to make a choice which would accomplish what they wanted. They might get a guy who only inspires further rebellions or rebels himself.

Quote

No king in the history of Westeros gave his two brothers to means to rebel both against his young son.

Not exactly brothers but I recall Viserys I to allow his sons with Alicent to gain dragons and thus gain power to challenge Rhaenyra for the throne. And I recall Daeron II keeping both Daemon and Aegor at court and given Daemon lands and permission to build a castle, largesse and kindness that blew up in Daeron's face with an open rebellion, not after his death, bur right there during his reign.

There have been kings who have unwisely empowered people in the Targaryen past as well.

Quote

It seems to me that things are going to hell right now without any outside intervention. And if Stannis gets the chance to regroup people might end up joining him after all.

And it seems to me that the crown, without outside intervention, will solve all things with only Cersei being able to squander the situation. And if Varys had not used his crossbow Cersei would not come near enough to power to undo all the good work that Tywin and later Kevan had done on behalf of the crown.

Stannis won't get his chance for Ramsay Snow is going to put Stannis six feet beneath and so solve that problem for the crown. And then we'll see how long the Boltons will manage to cling on to the North. Hopefully Roose will get rid of Ramsay as soon as possible and his son by Walda will rule after Roose but we'll have to wait and see.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

On 16/6/2017 at 5:50 PM, Sea Dragon said:

The purpose of the Targaryens and their incest is to preserve their genes and dragon blood and to show there is a master race. They are the best. Enough said. 

How they is a master race and why they are? Why goatherds are a master race?

[Sigella]

On 2017-06-15 at 11:09 PM, Angel Eyes said:

 

And these hybrids don't work very well. 

  Reveal hidden contents

Just ask Rhaego.

 

Perhaps I was unclear, the still-births don't work very well, but I can name a few other Targs that worked very well.

Spoiler

Dany Egg Daeron Jaehaerys Aegon I 

 

My guess would be that its either a question of blood-magic that gives them dragon-advantages and the still-borns are the blood they pay.

Or its a side effect from "keeping the blood of the dragon pure".

Or both

[Sigella]

5 hours ago, StraightFromAsshai said:

Keep in mind the Targaryen King Blood Line is not pure... they have intermarried with Blackwoods, Velaryons (multiple times) ((yes I know they are still Valaryian)), Martells, Probably more 

Its still like millions of percent more concentrated than any other House. 

[Lord Varys]

15 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

There's no reason to look beyond the two of them there. Sixteen is not an age of great maturity and Rhaenyra would have known that many people. including Aegon's mother, wanted Aegon to succeed in Rhaenyra's place. Combine an immature disposition (as I said sixteen is not an age of great maturity) with hostility between Rhaenyra and Alicent and you might get hostility from Rhaenyra that Aegon picks up and so you get two people who dislikes each other. And to that its not unlikely that Rhaenyra, used to be the sole focus of attention by father, uncle and court, would dislike that she suddenly had competition for these things. And like I said, sixteen is not an age of maturity so while a more mature Rhaenyra could easily have bonded with Aegon, sixteen years old don't tend in my experience to act that way.

I just can't imagine how a six-year-old and a sixteen-year-old don't get along all that well. They have nothing in common and nothing to fight about. A six-year-old doesn't even fully understand what's going on around him, certainly not in a world as complex as a royal court. And Viserys I clearly favored Rhaenyra. She was his heir, his favorite child, and the one who accompanied him to court and council. Aegon was just a 'second son', basically, a spare heir should anything happen to her before she had children of her own.

Aegon himself had no reason to be jealous of Rhaenyra unless other people fed him that idea/feeling and vice versa Rhaenyra had no reason to be jealous of Aegon because her father treated her as his eldest son, basically. She had his favor, always. Aegon was no rival of hers.

This is why the origin of this entire conflict on the personal has to be laid at the feet of Alicent and Otto. Once Alicent had given birth to sons they wanted them play the first fiddle. And once Viserys I didn't went along with that the relationship between Alicent and Rhaenyra changed from friendship to rivalry.

But at the age of six Aegon wouldn't have understood anything of that. The real personal grievances between these two must have come only only later.

15 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

Could be but I don't think so. Rhaenyra would presumably have wanted her daughter to succeed her without making common cause with a part of the family that she disliked and was disliked by. Not to mention that Daemon is unlikely to have accepted to see Otto's grandchildren take the throne, or even sit beside it.

Daemon doesn't figure into this at all. He was married to Laena while Rhaenyra had her three eldest children, and I was thinking of them. Rhaenyra's children by Daemon are too young to be considered as spouses for Alicent's children.

And there is no reason to believe that Rhaenyra herself was as 'feminist' to think that her eldest daughter should succeed her. Why should she think that? And royal marriages are usually not arranged without the leave of the king. Viserys I may have underestimated the depth of the hatred in his own family but he clearly knew that there were two competing parties. A marriage arranged between a daughter of his daughter and one of his own sons could have worked to heal that rift, especially if it had included the elder line. That's what he did when he married Rhaenyra to Laenor and that's what he would have done if the opportunity had presented itself.

And this could have resolved the entire thing before it escalated. If you believe either Alicent/Otto or Rhaenyra wanted things to go the way they did you are most likely wrong. Those people did not hate each other from the start. Both sides wanted power. The way things turned out they could not hold power together. But if they had been able to reach compromise they most likely wouldn't have killed each other.

Prior to the Aemond affair they should have been able to reach some sort of understanding.

15 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

Perhaps he would, but I don't think so. Renly does not strike me as the kind of guy to not step over the corpses of children to reach his goals as those children would be focal points for resistance against him, and their eventual children could compete with Renly's offspring for the throne. People with claims are dangerous to people with power.

We just don't know what he planned. The pressure to kill the children would have been pretty high but then - once Stannis' tale was out he could just declare them bastards and hand them to the Faith (raised in KL and under guard, of course). Killing children is ugly work and if the Lannisters are not completely eradicated this could be a problem. Renly clearly wanted to be loved. He did not want to look like a tyrant.

Cersei and Joffrey would most likely have to die, but I don't think it completely necessary that Tommen and Myrcella die, too.

15 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

In regards to Stannis there's no way that Stannis would make it out of there alive if Renly won. I don't see how Renly can elevate a defeated enemy without losing much in the PR, and Renly is all about PR, for why care to join him when his enemies are given the good stuff? And a conversation between them would be like their parley. Renly would smear his victory in Stannis' face and Stannis would refuse to bend an inch, thus making the whole excerise futile.

Renly has no problem with Stannis living despite the fact that he is older and has the better claim. He only gets angry after Stannis turns against him. Now, perhaps Stannis would die in captivity or something of that sort but I really don't know. It is a vile thing to murder your own brother. A death in battle may have been acceptable but a proper execution or a hushed-up murder would be bad PR.

15 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

I will agree that we'll have to wait. The reason that I think that it might come around is that not everyone in Daenaerys' camp is likely to be as open-minded as her and considering that she's gathering support against a Lannister-supported Baratheon reign, a man who is a dwarf, a kinslayer and a Lannister to that, could well invoke less that positive reactions from various people who are of influence in Daenaerys' side, like Barristan Selmy for instance or Victorion, provided that Victarion manages to get to speak with Danaerys without her calling for his head. So i don't think that the grass will be much greener on the other side for Tyrion and that's the reason that he might turn his coat once more to try and patch things up with one of the few people he knows has treated him well in the past.

This is pretty much idle speculation since we have no idea whether Cersei/Jaime will still be alive by the time Dany and/or Tyrion finally get to Westeros nor whether they will have any positions of power at that point. We don't even know whether they will necessarily be Dany's or Tyrion's enemies at this point. 

Dany's people and she herself certainly don't like Jaime, but that's it. Dany has no issues with Cersei.

15 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

Well, considering that the king is aboslute, I don't know why a queen would be an aboslute necessity beyond providing heirs. Now in the real medieval world a good queen was vital for any king and my country has had queens who ruled better than their husbands or even created grand realms that their male heirs squandered, but in Westeros there seems to have been a great decline in the influence of queens. We know that Aegon's sister-wives were important and so was Alysanne and then Alicent. But beyond that, the only queens, who were consorts of kings so I'm not counting Rhaenyra here since she was a ruling queen, that seems to have acted with authority and agenda in public affairs is to my knowledge, Cersei. So between Cersei and Alicent there's very little on queens wielding much public power or taking part in political affairs.

The queen is the spouse of the king - she gives him heirs, something that is important for any monarch. Viserys I only had Rhaenyra and after her came Daemon, something many people did not exactly like all that much. And both Rhaenyra and Daemon could die. A dynasty needs more than one potential heir.

15 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

Yet even so we can see that the problem within House Baratheon lies in conflict over who should be part of inner circle at court, rather similar to the Dance of the Dragons if you ask me. With Robert, and through his children, the Lannisters hanged on to power, while Renly wanted to maintain his position which would necessitate the removed of the Lannisters and their hooks in the capital due to Renly knowing that with power shifting hands, he would be furthe and further removed from central power. Thus Renly allied with the Tyrells who had identical ambitions as the Lannisters and were thus competition to the Lions. In regards to Stannis it was because he felt that Robert was doing a lousy job and that Robert's children were not his own.

I know all that. My point is that it is Robert's fault that Renly and Stannis were in positions to challenge his son. That was Robert's mistake. Had neither Renly nor Stannis been powerful lords in their own right they wouldn't have been able to challenge Joffrey.

15 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

The two separatist struggles are a very specific reason and motiviation, reasons not easily exported to other parts that are not affect in the same way. Thus there's really no way that I can see in how the desire to become independent can be brought to new parts of Westeros and thus strenghten that movement. The North and Riverlands are eager for independence because of conflicts and blood shed between Lannister and Stark and with a Lannister-puppet on the throne, further driven by northern exceptionalistic feelings together with Riverland dependence on the North's military aid. This is a very complex scenario which leads to this solution, much more complex than anything seen in the Dance of the Blackfyre when its essentially "I like this person more than that person for various reasons". It would take similarly set of events to convince the Vale or Reach that they should really strive for independence rather than just support someone more favorable to them to take the Iron Throne. But most importantly the separatist movements lacks the power to force peace on the Iron Throne. Robb can't threaten Lannisport, Casterly Rock or King's Landing, and no more threaten Highgarden or Storm¨'s End if Renly had won, while Renly can absolutely threaten the Riverlands and have a good chance to threaten the eastern coast of the North as well.

The fact that Renly or Joffrey/Tommen can try to regain the territory they lost to secessionist kings there is no guarantee that they can hold it. They have no dragons. And we see how great a threat the Ironborn have become under Euron. The inner squabbles among the Baratheons are either over or pretty insignificant right now.

15 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

And this leads us to the core conflict, namely over the Iron Throne. As seen in the developments in the books we see that whoever wins the core conflict will gather the power of South to him, and thus stand with overwhelming power to bring back both groups of separatists into the realm. As such Renly or Joffrey or Stannis who takes the throne will command power to destroy the separatists. We can clearly see the despair that comes in Harrenhall when it is learned that Highgarden has joined with Joffrey. And this situation would come regardless of who won of Renly or Joffrey, which means that the separatists lives on borrowed time and won't survive the settlement of the core conflict over the Iron Throne. That is the importance of the internal Baratheon conflict over the other parts of the war.

Robb could have kept the Riverlands after the Blackwater. But he sure as hell could have made it very hard for any enemy to try to conquer and hold the North. Perhaps this could have worked if a King Joffrey/Tommen or Renly could have counted on the support of all the other Seven Kingdoms but this would have clearly not been the case. The Dornishmen have their own plans, the Vale stays out of it, and so on.

15 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

I think that you are mistaken in this as well. Remember that peace was done between the crown and the Faith Militant after Jaehaerys had won the crown. This shows to me that there's at least two conflicts going on. One within House Targaryen and one between House Targaryen and the Faith Miliant and the two of them are settled separately.

Nope, the Faith Militant was officially disbanded by the High Septon who succeeded Ceryse's uncle after the man's sudden death. Maegor outlawed them and the High Septon commanded them to lay down their arms and submit to Maegor. Not all of them did that and especially the Poor Fellows continued the fight but there is no hint that those men also fought against Jaehaerys I or opposed his ascension in 48 AC.

The later agreement with Faith only happened in the 60s and while it included the final disarmament of the Faith the main issue there seemed to have been to take away the judicial privileges and powers of the Faith. The remnants of the Faith Militant that survived apparently weren't a major threat.

15 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

Dalton was a Lord Paramount of the Iron Islands and give direction to the Ironmen. Given the earlier behavior of the Greyjoys and Ironmen, I don't find it odd it Dalton would not have been eager to give up his personal paradise of reaving, dragons or not. A man like Quellon Greyjoy would probably have headed the call from King's Landing but he was not a creature of the Old Way like Dalton was.

Still, the man wore no crown and did not call himself king. And I'm not sure Rhaenyra would have wanted him to give up what he took. She may have granted the entire western coast to him for all we know.

15 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

Not really. Balon tried to steal a huge chunk of of the realm and failed miserable and his son squandered a golden chance to become the her of the war. And I dare say that given how Balon attacked the home of another group of rebels I don't see how Balon's actions were not to great benefit for Joffrey and Tommen. Its always to your benefit when your enemies attack each other.

Balon stole about half the Realm from Joffrey. And now Euron is after the Iron Throne itself.

15 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

No. Robert's rule was unwise but strong. In fact there are many reasons to draw parallels between Robert and Viserys in that both men ruled through their reigns successfully but failed to set things up for their heirs. And do you think that Viserys I was weak? I dare say that you don't think that he was a weak king regardless of how he mismanaged his House and how he failed to set things into place for his heir.

Personally, Viserys I and Robert are both weak men if you ask about their personal willpower and determination. Viserys was still the most powerful Targaryen king if you talk about the resources he had, and he certainly was much more interested in his government than Robert. Robert was a great warrior and general, but not a strong king.

But Viserys I made only one crucial mistake - reappointing Ser Otto as Hand - Robert made many such mistake. Pardoning Jaime, Varys, and Pycelle. Making Stannis and Renly great lords. Making Littlefinger Master of Coin. Giving Cersei as much as he did, etc. And all that aside from him not caring about his own government or kingdom all that much. Robert beggared the Crown. Viserys I left a full treasury despite the fact that throw a lot of balls, feasts, and tourneys throughout his reign.

15 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

And in regards to the Greyjoy, Robert's generosity had worked well before. It didn't work with Balon but I the problem with the Greyjoys is that if Balon is kept in place, it will be a guy with a memory of being smacked around. If someone new takes the position it might work better, or they might feel they would make a better go at it than Balon and so rebel themselves. And given the semi-isolated nature of the Iron Islands I don't think that there may per necessity have been knowledge in Robert's council on the situation to make a choice which would accomplish what they wanted. They might get a guy who only inspires further rebellions or rebels himself.

The Ironborn only understand the language of strength. If Robert had taken Balon's head and installed a person he could trust as the new Lord of the Iron Islands he could have ensured that they would behave later on.

15 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

Not exactly brothers but I recall Viserys I to allow his sons with Alicent to gain dragons and thus gain power to challenge Rhaenyra for the throne. And I recall Daeron II keeping both Daemon and Aegor at court and given Daemon lands and permission to build a castle, largesse and kindness that blew up in Daeron's face with an open rebellion, not after his death, bur right there during his reign.

Dragons don't give you the right or the power to do anything. There were a lot of Targaryen dragonriders who never tried to become king.

Daeron II only had issues with the Blackfyres, a Targaryen cadet branch. That's not the same as half or more of the lords of the Realm trying to rip it to pieces.

15 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

And it seems to me that the crown, without outside intervention, will solve all things with only Cersei being able to squander the situation. And if Varys had not used his crossbow Cersei would not come near enough to power to undo all the good work that Tywin and later Kevan had done on behalf of the crown.

I just don't agree with that. Stannis and Littlefinger and Doran and the Tyrells are still out there, and they don't need Cersei to fuck things up for them. They would have taken on Kevan and even Tywin, too. Perhaps they would have failed, perhaps not.

15 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

Stannis won't get his chance for Ramsay Snow is going to put Stannis six feet beneath and so solve that problem for the crown. And then we'll see how long the Boltons will manage to cling on to the North. Hopefully Roose will get rid of Ramsay as soon as possible and his son by Walda will rule after Roose but we'll have to wait and see.

Ramsay is not going to kill Stannis. Where are you getting that crap?

[Jaak]

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

And there is no reason to believe that Rhaenyra herself was as 'feminist' to think that her eldest daughter should succeed her. Why should she think that? And royal marriages are usually not arranged without the leave of the king. Viserys I may have underestimated the depth of the hatred in his own family but he clearly knew that there were two competing parties. A marriage arranged between a daughter of his daughter and one of his own sons could have worked to heal that rift, especially if it had included the elder line. That's what he did when he married Rhaenyra to Laenor and that's what he would have done if the opportunity had presented itself.

What also could have worked towards healing the rift - or moving it to a safer location - would have been marrying Helaena to Jacaerys.

Do you see now where the trouble with brother-sister marriages lies?

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Ramsay is not going to kill Stannis. Where are you getting that crap?

He is not going to kill Stannis because he already has. Your false king is dead, bastard.

Nor is he going to put Stannis six feet under. It´s tedious cutting or thawing a grave into frozen ground. And little practical reason to. This winter, carrion outside Winterfell´s walls - rather than inside in heated halls - freezes nicely and keeps till spring.

Will Stannis ever get six feet under? Will Aegon or Daenerys bury him? Or will he thaw and commence rotting in Dream of Spring, and stay on display till his bones have crumbled to dust, still unburied?

[Lord Varys]

4 hours ago, Jaak said:

What also could have worked towards healing the rift - or moving it to a safer location - would have been marrying Helaena to Jacaerys.

That could worked if Rhaenyra had not arranged betrothals between Daemon's twins and her two elder sons pretty quickly after their birth. But it is not sure that would have helped as much as, say, Aegon and a speculative daughter of Rhaenyra because it would still have cut out Alicent's male heirs out of the succession.

4 hours ago, Jaak said:

Do you see now where the trouble with brother-sister marriages lies?

Not really.

4 hours ago, Jaak said:

He is not going to kill Stannis because he already has. Your false king is dead, bastard.

That is his claim. Ramsay also claimed he has killed the Stark sons.

George would not cover the coming battle of ice in detail if Stannis was already dead. That would be a waste of pages, basically.