Why did people choose Robert Baratheon over their king?

[zandru]

1 hour ago, The Sunland Lord said:

Come on man. I hoped no one would take that serious. 

Sorry! It's been a hard year here, suffering beneath the Trumpian lash. Irony has died in the US. Many of us can no longer even recognize it.

[Ralphis Baratheon]

Not only did Aerys commit the atrocities already mentioned but before that he managed to dishonor and piss off Tywin Lannister. A man respected and feared by other nobles. Aerys even managed to offend Dorne by saying Rhaenys "smelled Dornish." He was a King who didn't think he needed any friends or allies, except for the pyro guild. 

[maudisdottir]

5 hours ago, UFT said:

if you're not gonna rally to aerys, thats fine. but not the queen? not the princes? they have a perfect sane rational monarch to lift up, queen rhaella. yet she is jsut killed like the rest and no one cares?

 

You’re ignoring the fact that toppling a dynasty means putting a new ruler in place of the old. I’m not going to risk going all Godwin on you, so I’ll use another example - would it make sense to depose Mussolini, only to give the power to his son, or his number one henchman? Sure, the victors often do this so they can have a puppet in charge for them to pull the strings, because tradition can play an important role in restoring peace. But it’s kind of ridiculous to argue that Robert, Ned et al would have turned to another Targ to put on the throne after deposing Aerys.

And nobody killed Rhaella, she died in childbirth.

[cpg2016]

18 hours ago, UFT said:

but most of the rebels seemed to not care about that. they rebelled solely because the LP said to. if thats the case, why not just declare themselves kings and leave? theyre acting like kings.

Well, practically speaking, this is because if the Starks command the Boltons to raise their banners, then the Boltons have a plausible excuse if the Starks lose - they have a feudal obligation to the Starks, and not necessarily to the Targaryens.

Moreover, until Aerys kills Rickard, Brandon, Brandon's party of young nobles, and then calls for Eddard and Robert, he hasn't really gone after the nobility at all.  That he's crazy is beyond doubt, but a crazy monarch often means weak centralized power, which means stronger nobles.  So in many ways, Aerys' madness and instability was a net positive for the Westerosi nobility not in the immediate orbit of Kings Landing.

18 hours ago, UFT said:

and no one in the rebellion said "ok we're deposing this evil dude. got it? good". yet no one cared that the plan was also to murder all the princes and princesses. lol wut? so you abusive father is bad. so lets send the cops to....kill you and your entire family". because that makes sense....

So... I take it your a fan of the show, and not the books?  Because it's made explicitly clear that Ned Stark, and presumably a bunch of others, are absolutely horrified by what happens to Elia and her children, both among the loyalists and the rebels.  So much so that it actually breaks the alliance holding Robert's Rebellion together - Ned abandons him after he condones those actions.  It's only Lyanna's death which reconciles them.  Within the novels.  Not sure about the show.

As for Rhaegar... well, lets start by saying that Robert, Jon, and Ned are 100% in the right, both legally and ethically, in rebelling against Aerys' attempt to murder them.  Knowing that, Rhaegar comes back to Kings Landing, after kidnapping and probably raping Lyanna Stark, to fight for Aerys to stay on the throne!  That he himself meant to stage a coup after is meaningless; Rhaegar was defending the right of the monarch to murder and imprison his vassals at a whim.  Not a great sign for the future, and mind you, the Targaryens have spent about 100 years squandering any goodwill they'd ever gained through a series of mostly complete failures of kings; Aerys is only the worst and last.  Aerys II is awful.  Jaehaerys II isn't around long enough to leave a mark.  Aegon V is, from the point of view of the nobility, a disaster.  Maekar is fine, but Aerys I allows Bloodraven to completely leave Targ vassals out to dry to focus on the Blackfyres.  Daeron II instigates the Blackfyre Rebellions.  Aegon IV is the only king worse than Aerys II.  Viserys II is the best ruler Westeros has ever had, but dies after a year of formal kingship.  Baelor I is legit crazy, if in a more passive way than Aerys II.  Daeron I is glorious, but also gets a TON of his subjects killed.  And then we're far enough back to be at the Dance!

18 hours ago, UFT said:

they already had that sane rational monarch. queen rhaella.

Women cannot exercise royal power.  This is an "iron precedent" that has been upheld throughout multiple generations in Westeros.

18 hours ago, UFT said:

to some extent her son rhaegar. why is it that everyone responding to me harps away on the fact that aerys being mad is justication enoguh, even though i agree! 

Instead of coming back from his kidnapping and rape of Lyanna Stark (and seriously... THAT is your example of a rational and sane monarch?) and saying to the rebels "you're right, you have legitimate grievances, lets call a Great Council and appoint a regent," he actively takes up arms, with the message being that he is protecting the right of the monarch to murder, rape, kidnap, and imprison his subjects without them having any recourse to the law.

It isn't that Aerys is mad; it's that he is A MURDERER.  He has a feudal duty to his vassals that he ignores.  That the Tyrells or anyone else fights for him at all is a massive error in worldbuilding.  Aegon II is poisoned on the mere suspicion that he might instigate reprisals, resprisals against nobles who fought against his fairly legitimate claim in a civil war.  Aerys II is murdering nobles left and right, for literally no reason than his own paranoia - of course that will instigate a revolt, as no one is going to willingly go to the slaughter because they were commanded to.

18 hours ago, UFT said:

how about you stop restating shit i already know? 

all i said was it makes zero sense that so few were royalist, despite their oath to be royalist as per aegon's conquest. 

You very clearly do NOT know this, as you've been invariably wrong and/or factually incorrect from the moment you started typing.

Let me explain a couple facts about feudalism you don't understand (we can put this in the truly massive "shit you DON'T already know" trillion-part Encyclopedia): holders of fiefs owe loyalty to the person giving them the land, not to the King.  So when Aerys calls for the outright murder of Jon Arryn, Eddard Stark, and Robert Baratheon, he is explicitly inviting rebellion from 3 full kingdoms.  Since it seems the Reach and Dorne join him as fully pro-Royalist regions, really the only wild cards here are the Lannisters and Tullys.  Hoster Tully not only has ties of marriage, but very good reason to think he'll be next on the chopping block, so he's in.  And Tywin has his own reasons for disliking Aerys that go beyond the fact that NO ONE should be fighting for Aerys.

So really what we have is a bunch of Stormlords and Valemen who are breaking their feudal vows by fighting for Aerys.  Not only are you wrong, you are 180 degrees wrong, in that you've not only misquoted the relevant facts, but done so in the exact opposite way that things should have transpired.

Quote

if you're not gonna rally to aerys, thats fine. but not the queen? not the princes? they have a perfect sane rational monarch to lift up, queen rhaella. yet she is jsut killed like the rest and no one cares?

Seriously, you need to read the books.  At least once.  Rhaella isn't killed, she dies in childbirth.  Wrong opinions are one thing (though yours are, in fact, wrong, and not just bad), but misquoted facts should not be tolerated.

And no one owes any loyalty to Rhaella, or Rhaegar (who is a kidnapper and rapist in his own right), who just absconded with the bride-to-be of one of his principal bannermen.

Viserys is a child, and a Regency means instability.  Beyond that, why should anyone want the Targaryens in power anymore?  A rebellion that unseats Aerys, just to put VIserys on the throne, is just inviting future reprisals once he comes of age.  Furthermore, the Targaryens have been negligent monarchs, at best, over the preceding century (as I mentioned), and often quite literally insane or dangerous subversive of the rights, privileges, an safety of their vassals.

[Livesundersink]

57 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

Aegon IV is the only king worse than Aerys II.

Cough, Maegor the Cruel, cough

[cpg2016]

1 hour ago, Livesundersink said:

Cough, Maegor the Cruel, cough

Fair, though that is a matter of debate.  First off, I'm inclined to give Maegor a pass, because it's obvious that his coma (or potentially his resurrection through blood magic) changes him for the worse.  Second... Maegor's cruelty actually solidifies the position of the monarchy and is directed at destabilizing elements in Westerosi politics, namely the armed Faith.  His utter cleansing of them allows Jaehaerys to have the leverage to disband them permanently.

Aegon IV and Aerys II, by contrast, direct their abuse of power to the satiating of carnal desires for the one, and the mental paranoia of the other, and don't even remotely serve a constructive purpose.  Say what you will about what he did (which was awful), but Maegor was theoretically acting in what he saw as the best interests of the monarchy/dynasty.

[Traverys]

23 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

Because feudal kingship is not the same as divine kingship.  Aerys II was monarch in part on the basis of protecting and succoring his vassals.

But think about it practically.  Aerys has just proven, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that he does not care about due process and is willing to straight up murder his most important and powerful vassals.  Even IF you think Brandon Stark did something wrong in calling out Rhaegar (hint: he didn't), Aerys' treatment of Rickard, and Eddard, and even the otherwise-uninvolved Robert Baratheon is literal murder.  He doesn't even bother with a false charge.  Mind you, Jon Arryn's nephew and heir (Elbert) and one of his principal bannermen's relations (Kyle Royce), and a Riverlander (someone Mallister) are all also imprisoned and maybe executed?  I can't remember.  I think all of them die except the squire.  But back to the point, the Tullys and Arryns have a requirement to stand up for their vassals as well; their expectation of loyalty from these Houses is predicated on them helping in times of need.  That applies to royal overreach as well as foreign invasion or domestic disputes.

It had nothing to do with people wanting something new, and everything to do with the fact that Aerys II Targaryen was a brutal sadist with no respect for law or tradition.  If your monarch is as likely to murder you if you obey him as if you aren't, then why not rebel and gain more influence with a sane, more rational monarch?

This is aligned with my opinion, or rather how things historically worked. Despite how much of a formal voice magnates had (e.g., parliament), a feudal kings still sat on the throne because the magnates/nobles/aristoctacy allowed him to. Since they essentially funded the crown, the crown in turn has a duty to them. He broke the contract between king and highborn subjects with his brutality.

To take the above argument further, Aerys began acting (at least from what we know from POV chapters) like he ruled by divine right... which may have been a feasible approach if he had some dragons to back him up (e.g., Maegor the Cruel). Their tendency to marry brother and sister really put them out of the running for being seen as truly chosen by the seven gods... rather they acted like they themselves were gods. Also, I'm sure, quite blasphemous to those of the faith. I don't mention the Old Gods here because it's not a formal institution like the Faith is.

Once Targaryens lost their dragons they lost all their bite that allowed them to act in such a manner... the only reason they were able to forge the seven kingdoms into one to begin with. It was only a matter of time before one of the more eccentric kings were off-putting enough to inspire rebellion, in my opinion.

 

[Livesundersink]

22 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

but Maegor was theoretically acting in what he saw as the best interests of the monarchy/dynasty.

Like how he wiped out the Harroway's because his wife birthed a deformed child?

Or how he had one of his nephews tortured to death?

[theMADdestScientist_]

23 hours ago, Maximus Greyjoy said:

but in the end The Prince Of Dragonstone choose to be the good son so,popular support went to Robert.

Which "popular support" is that? Rhaegar outnumbered Robert on the trident.

 

[Curled Finger]

On 12/18/2017 at 4:03 PM, UFT said:

if you're not gonna rally to aerys, thats fine. but not the queen? not the princes? they have a perfect sane rational monarch to lift up, queen rhaella. yet she is jsut killed like the rest and no one cares?

I don't know what you know so no offense intended.   Queen Rhaella was never at the front of the line to be supported.   Remember, it's a deeply misogynist culture.    Rhaegar could have gained a lot of support, but he failed to find an effective way to enlist the major players who ended up against him for a million reasons.  Rhaella was sent to Dragonstone where she died in child birth.   Elia and her children were held back as hostages and ultimately killed.   Rhaegar was the one who had the chance and he blew it.  Big time.   

I haven't seen mention of the Blackfyre Rebellions pop up yet.   I think those battles or thwarted battles tell a lot about Targaryan loyalty.    The Targs really did rule all when they had dragons, once their power left, I believe their appeal did too.  There were some terrible Targs in charge. That really came to light during the rebellions.  A lot of people died for change.

In light of the conspiracy between the Arryns, Tullys, Starks and Baratheons coupled with the supporters of the Blackfyres, it's clear that the people of Westeros understood the sort of king they were stuck with.  His insanity was no secret.  He wasn't sitting on the Iron Throne to promote progress or peace.  He was a spiteful, dirty and nasty person who allowed everyone to see his personal shortcomings despite being king.   It's one thing to have rulers like Jahaerys and Alyssanne who so obviously cared for the entire realm.   It's quite another to have just another paranoid, selfish nutbag ruin your world. 

I wonder what kind of support Tywin would have rallied if he'd openly defied the crown with an act of war.   By all accounts he was a great hand.   Even he couldn't stand his king.  

[Ralphis Baratheon]

4 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

Aegon IV and Aerys II, by contrast, direct their abuse of power to the satiating of carnal desires for the one, and the mental paranoia of the other,

Aerys also burned people for carnal desires. Watching people burn was like viagra for him. Unfortunately for Rhaella, he only kept to her bed after he became a pyrophliac.