Jump to content

Why did Ned warn Cersei?


TheDonAJ

Recommended Posts

Why did Ned warn Cersei? I know, I know, if he told Robert he would've killed her and the kids, reminding Ned of the sack of KL. So why not send some of his best men to hide Joffrey, tommen and myrcella (probably across the narrow sea), and at the first opportunity inform Robert of Cersei and Jamie's twincest? Surely Ned believes Cersei and Jamie deserve to be executed for their treason.

Apologies if this has been asked before,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, TheDonAJ said:

Why did Ned warn Cersei? I know, I know, if he told Robert he would've killed her and the kids, reminding Ned of the sack of KL. So why not send some of his best men to hide Joffrey, tommen and myrcella (probably across the narrow sea), and at the first opportunity inform Robert of Cersei and Jamie's twincest? Surely Ned believes Cersei and Jamie deserve to be executed for their treason.

Apologies if this has been asked before,

It's funny that you asked this questions.  I have LONG AGO made the conclusion that had Ned told Robert, this whole entire saga would have never happened.  Robert would still be king, Ned would still be alive, along with Catlyn and all of their kids, etc, etc.  Sure Dany and and Drogo would have contested the throne at some point (I think Viserys would have still gotten himself killed) but the landscape would have been totally different.  Jon would still be at the Wall to discover the WW threat and winter would still have come.  But Ned would have been alive to see it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Jaehaerys Stark said:

It's funny that you asked this questions.  I have LONG AGO made the conclusion that had Ned told Robert, this whole entire saga would have never happened.  Robert would still be king, Ned would still be alive, along with Catlyn and all of their kids, etc, etc.  Sure Dany and and Drogo would have contested the throne at some point (I think Viserys would have still gotten himself killed) but the landscape would have been totally different.  Jon would still be at the Wall to discover the WW threat and winter would still have come.  But Ned would have been alive to see it...

Tywin lannister owned robert though. If robert went after cersei and jaime tywin would destroy robert.  All tywin had to do was call in the debt that robert owned him and he would send the entire country into a massive depression and civil war would have started. Plus robert would have died sooner rather then later l given his lifestyle. I don't know but I don't think it would be so cut and dry.

 

However if it did it would be another one of those things that GRRM likes to pose. Ned did the honorable thing and it not only resulted in his death but rob's,catelyn,and thousands of others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, snow is the man said:

Tywin lannister owned robert though. If robert went after cersei and jaime tywin would destroy robert.  All tywin had to do was call in the debt that robert owned him and he would send the entire country into a massive depression and civil war would have started. Plus robert would have died sooner rather then later l given his lifestyle. I don't know but I don't think it would be so cut and dry.

 

However if it did it would be another one of those things that GRRM likes to pose. Ned did the honorable thing and it not only resulted in his death but rob's,catelyn,and thousands of others.

Would he though?  During Robert's reign, their wasn't any contention to the throne.  Not like Cersei now, who claims to rule the 7 kingdoms, but as Jaime said, rules 3 at best.  If Tywin called in the crown's debt to his family, Robert could have just had him killed.  Who would've come to collect?  The Lannister army?  Cut the head off the snake, and the body dies.  If he had Tywin killed, who comes to avenge his death?  The Mad king had the warden of the North and his heir killed right in the throne room.  Yet Robert's rebellion didn't technically start with those deaths.  It started when Jon Arryn refused to bring Aerys the heads of Robert and Ned.  The Lannisters couldn't have overthrown Robert if he offed Tywin, Jaime and Cersei.  Robert had the support of House Tyrell, who has the next biggest army after the Lannisters.  With the support of the other major houses in the south, and support from the north, what could Tywin have done?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Jaehaerys Stark said:

Would he though?  During Robert's reign, their wasn't any contention to the throne.  Not like Cersei now, who claims to rule the 7 kingdoms, but as Jaime said, rules 3 at best.  If Tywin called in the crown's debt to his family, Robert could have just had him killed.  Who would've come to collect?  The Lannister army?  Cut the head off the snake, and the body dies.  If he had Tywin killed, who comes to avenge his death?  The Mad king had the warden of the North and his heir killed right in the throne room.  Yet Robert's rebellion didn't technically start with those deaths.  It started when Jon Arryn refused to bring Aerys the heads of Robert and Ned.  The Lannisters couldn't have overthrown Robert if he offed Tywin, Jaime and Cersei.  Robert had the support of House Tyrell, who has the next biggest army after the Lannisters.  With the support of the other major houses in the south, and support from the north, what could Tywin have done?  

I imagine if robert had tried something he would have found himself killed before he even thought of going on the battle field. Tywin would have done it through assasination and without proof joffrey would have taken the throne and he would have backed tywin. But maybe I'm wrong

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He didn't trust Robert and it's clear he never got over Rheagar's kids being killed and then Robert approving of it, he was incensed by Robert getting a hard on for killing Dany, and the implication of Jon weighed on him. As much as he loved Robert, he wasn't prepared to be the reason three children were killed by him just for existing. 

Warning Cersie and having her hide behind the Lannister's resources was their best chance of survival. 

Tbf Ned is a massive hypocrite here. He really should have just let the whole thing go if he wasn't prepared to make a play that had teeth. He can keep a secret about Jon, but three kids that nobody needs to be the wiser about are a problem? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, lancerman said:

He didn't trust Robert and it's clear he never got over Rheagar's kids being killed and then Robert approving of it, he was incensed by Robert getting a hard on for killing Dany, and the implication of Jon weighed on him. As much as he loved Robert, he wasn't prepared to be the reason three children were killed by him just for existing. 

Warning Cersie and having her hide behind the Lannister's resources was their best chance of survival. 

Tbf Ned is a massive hypocrite here. He really should have just let the whole thing go if he wasn't prepared to make a play that had teeth. He can keep a secret about Jon, but three kids that nobody needs to be the wiser about are a problem? 

Yeah the whole Sack of Kingslanding has weighed heavily on Ned's soul all these years. Throw on the whole Jon and Lyanna thing and Ned really does not want any children to get hurt. 

As far as just letting it go though...Naw that is not going to fly. The North bled for Robert to ascend the throne and the Lannisters just swooped in at the last second and got the "lion's share" of the reward at the very end after all was basically said and done. Add on to that Jaime breaking his Kingsguard vow in the worst way possible, and Ned does not want the Lannisters near the throne especially if it isn't Half Baratheon. 

if it wasn't for sending most of his personal guard off to stop the Mountain in the Riverlands Ned may have actually been able to sequester the kids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...