Why did the Tullys side with Robert Baratheon?

[Blackwater Revenant]

On 2017-12-22 at 8:16 AM, Melisandre's Rubies said:

Jon Arryn himself was unable to produce viable offspring. His first wife died in childbirth and the child was stillborn. His second marriage produced no children, as well. His heir prior to the Rebellion was his nephew, Elbert. This match was beneficial to both parties because Hoser needed a match that wouldn't object to Lysa's past, and in truth, her path was part of the lure for Jon because he needed a wife that had the ability to get pregnant. There's a chance that the abortion caused her trouble in carrying another child to term, but there's also an incredibly higher chance that Jon was the cause of fertility issues. Lysa got pregnant right away with Baelish's child while Jon had been married to two different women and since only one stillbirth is listed that may have been the only successful conception. This history is part of what drives the theory that Robert Arryn is actually Littlefinger's, conceived after he was made Master of Coin and moved to King's Landing. All the blame, in that "time" and culture, was placed on the woman while the man's fertility and genetics play an equal role. 

 

The seed is strong weak. It is known.

[Bernie Mac]

2 hours ago, Adam Yozza said:

So in your mind stupidy means you should be killed? Brandon was reckless and foolish but he didn't deserve death.

In their world he did. I doubt anyone is saying they want a return to feudal times, but in their society his crime was absolutely worthy of the death penalty. 

The only thing that should have saved him was his status as if it was a person with lesser blood there would be no doubt the punishment of this crime. 

2 hours ago, Adam Yozza said:

 

Monarch's can execute sure. But the person they're executing needs to be given a trial/confess for it to be an execution;

Nope. Not when everyone has seen the guilt. Robb did not give a trial to Rickard Kartark as his guilt was witnessed and not in doubt. Ned did not give a trial to Gared as his guilt was clear. 

The idea that everyone gets a trial is ludicrous as then you could have people like Ramsay murdering the Stark children infront of witnesses and then demanding a trial. 

And case in point, Rickard demanded a trial for himself as his guilt was in question. Brandon did not ask for such a trial as he did not deserve one, there was no question over his guilt. 

2 hours ago, Adam Yozza said:

 

that's why Tywin didn't just execute Tyrion;

The evidence against him in both cases was circumstantial. 

2 hours ago, Adam Yozza said:

 

that's why Joffrey needed Ned to confess first.

No, he didnt. The confession was a PR move, to quell the rumour of Joffrey's birth. As Ned points out, he could have been executed at any time and he never considers asking for a trial as he committed his crime infront of throne room of witnesses. 

2 hours ago, Adam Yozza said:

 

Aerys gave neither Brandon, Elbert, Kyle or Jeffory nor their fathers a trial.

We don't know about that. But Rickard did ask for a trial as his guilt was questionable. Why do you think Bandon did not ask for a trial and be given a shady trial as well?

2 hours ago, Adam Yozza said:

 

He just killed them. With the exception of Brandon, he killed them just for the crime of being there.

That was part of the crime. A posse, so to speak, rode in and threatened the life of the heir of the realm. 

2 hours ago, Adam Yozza said:

Aerys deserved to be overthrown. Jon, Ned and Robert were right to rebel and Hoster; whatever his reasons; made the right choice.

Clearly not. Less than two decades later his his House has lost its lands and titles. 

The Targaryens and Baratheons made him landlord of the Riverlands, I can't see the next monarch of Westeros repeating that mistake with a House that has rebelled against the sitting King twice in the last two decades. 

[Mon ami]

3 hours ago, Adam Yozza said:

So in your mind stupidy means you should be killed? Brandon was reckless and foolish but he didn't deserve death. Monarch's can execute sure. But the person they're executing needs to be given a trial/confess for it to be an execution; that's why Tywin didn't just execute Tyrion; that's why Joffrey needed Ned to confess first. Aerys gave neither Brandon, Elbert, Kyle or Jeffory nor their fathers a trial. He just killed them. With the exception of Brandon, he killed them just for the crime of being there. Their fathers were killed because they were related to someone who was just there.

Aerys deserved to be overthrown. Jon, Ned and Robert were right to rebel and Hoster; whatever his reasons; made the right choice.

Brandon threatened the royal family in public.  He rode into the keep, fully armed and making threats.  There was no need for a trial. 

 

[Brannis the Mannis]

8 minutes ago, Mon ami said:

Brandon threatened the royal family in public.  He rode into the keep, fully armed and making threats.  There was no need for a trial. 

 

Even if you could argue that, there is no defending the burning of Rickard when all he did was answer his liege's summons. 

[Angel Eyes]

6 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

In their world he did. I doubt anyone is saying they want a return to feudal times, but in their society his crime was absolutely worthy of the death penalty. 

The only thing that should have saved him was his status as if it was a person with lesser blood there would be no doubt the punishment of this crime. 

Nope. Not when everyone has seen the guilt. Robb did not give a trial to Rickard Kartark as his guilt was witnessed and not in doubt. Ned did not give a trial to Gared as his guilt was clear. 

The idea that everyone gets a trial is ludicrous as then you could have people like Ramsay murdering the Stark children infront of witnesses and then demanding a trial. 

And case in point, Rickard demanded a trial for himself as his guilt was in question. Brandon did not ask for such a trial as he did not deserve one, there was no question over his guilt. 

The evidence against him in both cases was circumstantial. 

No, he didnt. The confession was a PR move, to quell the rumour of Joffrey's birth. As Ned points out, he could have been executed at any time and he never considers asking for a trial as he committed his crime infront of throne room of witnesses. 

We don't know about that. But Rickard did ask for a trial as his guilt was questionable. Why do you think Bandon did not ask for a trial and be given a shady trial as well?

That was part of the crime. A posse, so to speak, rode in and threatened the life of the heir of the realm. 

Clearly not. Less than two decades later his his House has lost its lands and titles. 

The Targaryens and Baratheons made him landlord of the Riverlands, I can't see the next monarch of Westeros repeating that mistake with a House that has rebelled against the sitting King twice in the last two decades. 

Brandon isn’t the type to ask for a trial, didn’t Barbrey Dustin say that Brandon liked to take?

 

[Bernie Mac]

55 minutes ago, Angel Eyes said:

Brandon isn’t the type to ask for a trial, didn’t Barbrey Dustin say that Brandon liked to take?

 

lol so he'd rather just be executed that ask for a trial by combat? The very reason he came to the Capital was to ask for a fight to the death, you think he is going to ask for one when the alternative is death?

 

And how does that quote suggest that Brandon would not ask, if anything it suggests the opposite "Brandon was never shy about taking what he wanted.", not asking for a trial would be wanting death. 

 

[Adam Yozza]

15 hours ago, Mon ami said:

Brandon threatened the royal family in public.  He rode into the keep, fully armed and making threats.  There was no need for a trial. 

 

Okay, sure. I'll give you that. But what about Elbert, Kyle and Jeffory? And their father's? And Rickard? Did they also not deserve a trial? Even in Westeros they have committed no crimes and thus should be given a trial. But that doesn't happen. As far as we know the only one who got any sort of trial was Rickard and even then Aerys rigged it to be impossible to win.

 

16 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

In their world he did. I doubt anyone is saying they want a return to feudal times, but in their society his crime was absolutely worthy of the death penalty. 

The only thing that should have saved him was his status as if it was a person with lesser blood there would be no doubt the punishment of this crime. 

Nope. Not when everyone has seen the guilt. Robb did not give a trial to Rickard Kartark as his guilt was witnessed and not in doubt. Ned did not give a trial to Gared as his guilt was clear. 

The idea that everyone gets a trial is ludicrous as then you could have people like Ramsay murdering the Stark children infront of witnesses and then demanding a trial. 

And case in point, Rickard demanded a trial for himself as his guilt was in question. Brandon did not ask for such a trial as he did not deserve one, there was no question over his guilt. 

The evidence against him in both cases was circumstantial. 

No, he didnt. The confession was a PR move, to quell the rumour of Joffrey's birth. As Ned points out, he could have been executed at any time and he never considers asking for a trial as he committed his crime infront of throne room of witnesses. 

We don't know about that. But Rickard did ask for a trial as his guilt was questionable. Why do you think Bandon did not ask for a trial and be given a shady trial as well?

That was part of the crime. A posse, so to speak, rode in and threatened the life of the heir of the realm. 

Clearly not. Less than two decades later his his House has lost its lands and titles. 

The Targaryens and Baratheons made him landlord of the Riverlands, I can't see the next monarch of Westeros repeating that mistake with a House that has rebelled against the sitting King twice in the last two decades. 

Yeah, except I wasn't referring to whether he deserved to die based on a Westerosi's world view. I was responding to another poster who said Brandon deserved to die because he was stupid. Nothing to do with a medieval viewpoint.

Okay yeah sure, maybe Brandon wasn't entitled to a trial. But lets not forget to point out that when Rickard asked for a trial by combat; never mind that he wasn't actually guilty of anything and had been unjustly arrested; Aerys rigged it so that Rickard couldn't even fight back.

We don't know anything about what happened in the Red Keep. You can't sat 'a posse rode in and threatened the heir' because we don't know that they were even armed. Odds are they actually weren't. For all we know they were trying to stop Brandon. Or maybe they went to demand justice but weren't involved in any threats. We don't know but it seems unlikely that four people would be so reckless as to demand the Princes death in front of the King. That seems over the top even for just Brandon.

The Tully's losing their titles in a different situation. At the time of Roberts Rebellion, Aerys had to be removed and therefore the right thing was to join the STAB alliance. That was the smart play too, because it got the Tully's marriages with two other LP's, and an alliance with a third; who would later become King.

Depending on who the next monarch is then yeah I can see the Tully's being restored, if there's any still alive when the dust settle's. What other choice is there?

[Bernie Mac]

1 minute ago, Adam Yozza said:

 

 

Yeah, except I wasn't referring to whether he deserved to die based on a Westerosi's world view. I was responding to another poster who said Brandon deserved to die because he was stupid. Nothing to do with a medieval viewpoint.

If he was alive in our time he'd be receiving a Darwin award. 

1 minute ago, Adam Yozza said:

Okay yeah sure, maybe Brandon wasn't entitled to a trial. But lets not forget to point out that when Rickard asked for a trial by combat; never mind that he wasn't actually guilty of anything and had been unjustly arrested; Aerys rigged it so that Rickard couldn't even fight back.

Totally agree. Rickard was (possibly) fucked over, by an insane king, an idiot son and a misguided daughter, though the jury is still out on Lyanna, she may have had no choice in the matter. 

1 minute ago, Adam Yozza said:

We don't know anything about what happened in the Red Keep. You can't sat 'a posse rode in and threatened the heir' because we don't know that they were even armed. Odds are they actually weren't.

How exactly are the odds that they were not? How on earth have you came to that conclusion? That these warriors came with Brandon unarmed, come on. That is a ridiculous statement to make and you are in danger of invalidating any sensible comments you have made with points like this. 

1 minute ago, Adam Yozza said:

 

For all we know they were trying to stop Brandon.

Then they should have done so in the hundreds of miles between Riverrun and Kings Landing, they should have given up trying to stop him once inside Kings Landing as being with him at the Red Keep when he demanded the right to murder the Heir of the realm made them guilty as he did. 

More Darwin awards to be handed out, if only Brandon and his friends heeded the advice of Hoster Tully. 

1 minute ago, Adam Yozza said:

 

Or maybe they went to demand justice but weren't involved in any threats. We don't know but it seems unlikely that four people would be so reckless as to demand the Princes death in front of the King. That seems over the top even for just Brandon.

But it is not over the top for Brandon, we know he did it. Ned does not try to deny, Cat who loved him does not think it was false and all the information we have on him further validates that he was stupid enough to do such a thing. That Brandon commited this crime is canon. Not one source in the books suggests that it was false. 

The other guys are warriors with Brandon. We have no idea on their character, but there is no suggestion they were trying to stop him in the books. 

1 minute ago, Adam Yozza said:

The Tully's losing their titles in a different situation. At the time of Roberts Rebellion, Aerys had to be removed

Did he? Half of the Kingdom did not agree with that. And even so, what of his children and grandchildren, they are not guilty of his crime. 

Hoster Tully sold out the Dynasty that gave his House the Riverlands, he did not do it for honour, but for marriage alliances. 

1 minute ago, Adam Yozza said:

 

and therefore the right thing was to join the STAB alliance.

You think Dany or (F)Aegon will see it that way? That they would want to appoint vassals who will turn on their entire House, not just individuals, if it becomes beneficial for them?

No, they will want vassals who will be loyal even when the smart thing is to betray House Targaryn

1 minute ago, Adam Yozza said:

 

That was the smart play too, because it got the Tully's marriages with two other LP's, and an alliance with a third; who would later become King.

No one claimed it was not smart, I pointed out that no current claimant of the Throne would see any reason to reward House Tully for rebelling against the Crown twice in two decades. Edmure has lost his lands, lost his titles, army and wealth and the Tullys never really had the same influence over their vassals as the Starks, Lannisters, Arryns etc had. Edmure has nothing to bargain with to try and be given back all he has lost. 

1 minute ago, Adam Yozza said:

Depending on who the next monarch is then yeah I can see the Tully's being restored, if there's any still alive when the dust settle's. What other choice is there?

Give it to a loyal vassal. New monarchs have their own people they wish to reward, people they can trust to not backstab them when it becomes the smart thing to do. 

New monarchs also need to buy loyalty from established powerful Houses to get them on side, some Riverland Lord with far more to bargain with is more likely to get it than Edmure. 

 

There would be literally be hundreds, maybe even thousands, of better options for all the current claimants of the Throne to give Riverrun and/or the Riverlands to. 

[Aline de Gavrillac]

On 12/23/2017 at 1:18 PM, Adam Yozza said:

So in your mind stupidy means you should be killed? Brandon was reckless and foolish but he didn't deserve death. Monarch's can execute sure. But the person they're executing needs to be given a trial/confess for it to be an execution; that's why Tywin didn't just execute Tyrion; that's why Joffrey needed Ned to confess first. Aerys gave neither Brandon, Elbert, Kyle or Jeffory nor their fathers a trial. He just killed them. With the exception of Brandon, he killed them just for the crime of being there. Their fathers were killed because they were related to someone who was just there.

Aerys deserved to be overthrown. Jon, Ned and Robert were right to rebel and Hoster; whatever his reasons; made the right choice.

Tywin didn't execute Tyrion because his guilt was in question.  There was no question of Brandon's guilt.  Brandon rode into the Red Keep with his armed companions and making threats on the king's family.  No ruler will tolerate that kind of behavior.  Ride into Casterly Rock making threats and see how Tywin deals with you.  Ride into Winterfell screaming death to the Starks and you won't walk out with your life.  That's just how it goes.  Walk into a modern person's house waving a weapon and threatening to kill them and they have the right to kill you.  Brandon was stupid and he paid for it with his life.  No trial needed.  The king can deny a trial because the king is the maker of the laws.

[cpg2016]

On 12/22/2017 at 6:16 PM, Aline de Gavrillac said:

He deserved his execution.  By the way, monarchs do not murder, they execute.  There is a subtle but distinct difference.  A monarch has the authority to pass sentence. 

One can only be executed after a trial.  The definition of the word is actually "to carry out a sentence of death on a legally condemned person".  Since there is no universe, fictional or real, in which Brandon and Rickard's trial was "fair" or "legal", Aerys DID in fact murder both of them.

So maybe get your facts straight before spouting off nonsense.

[Adam Yozza]

5 minutes ago, Aline de Gavrillac said:

Tywin didn't execute Tyrion because his guilt was in question.  There was no question of Brandon's guilt.  Brandon rode into the Red Keep with his armed companions and making threats on the king's family.  No ruler will tolerate that kind of behavior.  Ride into Casterly Rock making threats and see how Tywin deals with you.  Ride into Winterfell screaming death to the Starks and you won't walk out with your life.  That's just how it goes.  Walk into a modern person's house waving a weapon and threatening to kill them and they have the right to kill you.  Brandon was stupid and he paid for it with his life.  No trial needed.  The king can deny a trial because the king is the maker of the laws.

Sure, I'll give you that. Brandon's guilt wasn't in question so Aerys could just execute him. But what of his companions? They didn't ride in to demand Rhaegar's head. They didn't get a trial and neither did their fathers. Only Rickard did and even his was rigged in such a way that he couldn't win it despite not being guilty of anything at all.

Anyway, my biggest issue was with you claiming that Brandon deserved to die because he was stupid. You could say that he brought his fate on himself by being reckless but to say he deserved it for trying to get justice for his sister is just stupid.

As I said, Aerys was a tyrant and had to be removed. His treatment of Brandon, his companions, their fathers and Rickard and his subsequent call for Ned and Robert's heads prove this.

[cpg2016]

On 12/23/2017 at 3:37 PM, Bernie Mac said:

In their world he did. I doubt anyone is saying they want a return to feudal times, but in their society his crime was absolutely worthy of the death penalty. 

The only thing that should have saved him was his status as if it was a person with lesser blood there would be no doubt the punishment of this crime. 

Please quote the relevant statute or law.  Technically, Brandon didn't even threaten anyone - all he said was Rhaegar should come out and die.  He didn't say how.

On 12/23/2017 at 3:37 PM, Bernie Mac said:

Nope. Not when everyone has seen the guilt. Robb did not give a trial to Rickard Kartark as his guilt was witnessed and not in doubt. Ned did not give a trial to Gared as his guilt was clear. 

Both of those people confessed, or were caught doing something outright illegal without extenuating circumstances.  And by the way, in both cases, an actual crime was committed, not just threatened.

On 12/23/2017 at 3:37 PM, Bernie Mac said:

And case in point, Rickard demanded a trial for himself as his guilt was in question. Brandon did not ask for such a trial as he did not deserve one, there was no question over his guilt. 

Actually, we have no evidence as to what Brandon asked for.  Presumably, he does ask for a trial, as do his companions.  And again, what is he guilty of?  Making a veiled threat?

Also... of what was Rickard "questionably guilty"?  He's obviously and explicitly 100% innocent of any wrongdoing in this, as are Ned and Robert.

On 12/23/2017 at 3:37 PM, Bernie Mac said:

That was part of the crime. A posse, so to speak, rode in and threatened the life of the heir of the realm. 

Well, this isn't true.  We are explicitly told that Brandon is the only one to threaten anyone, and even then, on technical grounds, he doesn't do any such thing.

But the very presumption that everyone else is guilty by association speaks volumes about (a) your complete ignorance of, and disregard for, the law, and (b) the attitude towards the same at Aerys' court.

On 12/23/2017 at 4:25 PM, Mon ami said:

Brandon threatened the royal family in public.  He rode into the keep, fully armed and making threats.  There was no need for a trial. 

Technically he didn't.  His statement for "Rhaegar to come out and die" could be interpreted many ways.  And even if you presume the royal person is sacrosanct, and threatening him is treason... well, Rhaegar isn't the king.  And given the abduction and rape of Lyanna, I'd say that technically, Brandon is right - from the purely legalistic perspective you people seem to be taking, Rhaegar is already dead, since that is the legal punishment for his crime.  All Brandon is doing is demanding the enforcement of what should be an already declared sentence - if Brandon wouldn't deserve a trial for threatening a royal family member (which very explicitly is not a crime, we see it occur many times), Rhaegar shouldn't for kidnapping and raping a betrothed noblewoman.

So make up your mind.  I get you're Targaryen fanboys, but if you want to make up your own rules, they have to play by them the same as everyone else.

[Aline de Gavrillac]

2 minutes ago, Adam Yozza said:

Sure, I'll give you that. Brandon's guilt wasn't in question so Aerys could just execute him. But what of his companions? They didn't ride in to demand Rhaegar's head. They didn't get a trial and neither did their fathers. Only Rickard did and even his was rigged in such a way that he couldn't win it despite not being guilty of anything at all.

Anyway, my biggest issue was with you claiming that Brandon deserved to die because he was stupid. You could say that he brought his fate on himself by being reckless but to say he deserved it for trying to get justice for his sister is just stupid.

As I said, Aerys was a tyrant and had to be removed. His treatment of Brandon, his companions, their fathers and Rickard and his subsequent call for Ned and Robert's heads prove this.

Brandon's companions didn't stand meekly by and just lent their presence for moral support.  They were fully willing to back up Brandon and took up arms against Aerys and his family.  Aerys, if you will recall, spared the young squire because the boy had nothing to do with Brandon's behavior. 

On Rickard, yes, his guilt was not evident.  I support the Southron Ambitions conspiracy theory but it has so far not been completely proven.  I think there is a good deal to support it and it is possible Brandon sang during his stay in the dungeons.  Aerys executed Rickard because he believed him guilty of conspiracy against the Targaryens. 

The Boltons are tyrants and yet nobody is calling for their removal.  Tywin is  a tyrant and no one called for his removal.  The lords of the north practiced the rights of the first nights and nobody is calling for their removal.  The right to rule is not based on anything except birth right.  Remove a tyrant king and all of the lords who displeased their subjects will be the next in line for forced retirement. 

You know, you and I are seeing this from opposite points of views.  I don't hate the Starks but I have no fondness for them.  I believe Rickard Stark is guilty of conspiring against the Targaryens and so I am ok with whatever Aerys chooses to do with him and his family even to the point of leveling Winterfell down to pebble sized pieces.  Some people in this forum feel the opposite and will still support the Starks even if it's proven that they were plotting against the Targaryens. 

[cpg2016]

1 minute ago, Aline de Gavrillac said:

Brandon's companions didn't stand meekly by and just lent their presence for moral support.  They were fully willing to back up Brandon and took up arms against Aerys and his family.  Aerys, if you will recall, spared the young squire because the boy had nothing to do with Brandon's behavior. 

OK so wait, the young squire was there to meekly stand by, but everyone else was there to fight?  Please provide the quote saying that.  All we know is that Brandon potentially threatened Rhaegar, and everyone else was not noted to have acted or spoken.  That Aerys spares the squire tells us nothing of the culpability of the other knights and lords there, since we know explicitly that he wants to murder Ned and Robert as well, despite their total and incontrovertible innocence.

Also, please show where anyone takes up arms against Aerys himself.  The presumed threat is against Rhaegar and only Rhaegar.

4 minutes ago, Aline de Gavrillac said:

Aerys executed Rickard because he believed him guilty of conspiracy against the Targaryens. 

It's pretty clear in context that Aerys executes Rickard because he suspects him of colluding with Brandon to threaten Rhaegar and the throne, not because of a not-canonical conspiracy.  It's why he calls for Ned and Robert's murder (because they are connected with Lyanna and therefore Rhaegar) and not Jon Arryn, or Hoster or Catelyn Tully (who, while intimately connected to SA, have no connection to Lyanna/Rhaegar).

6 minutes ago, Aline de Gavrillac said:

The Boltons are tyrants and yet nobody is calling for their removal. 

Uh.... just about everyone is?  At least in the North.  Wyman Manderly and Robett Glover are conspiring against them, and the mountain clans are pretty explicit about wanting to spill Bolton blood before they die.  Half the Umbers are actively fighting the Boltons, and the other half are grudgingly supporting them because the Greatjon is a captive.  Seriously, read the books and don't just watch the show before posting.

8 minutes ago, Aline de Gavrillac said:

Tywin is  a tyrant and no one called for his removal. 

Tywin wasn't technically in power until just before his death, so there was nothing for him to removed from.  And mind you, one of Ned Stark's last acts is to call Tywin to account.  And, of course, the Martells are actively plotting his downfall personally, and the Starks, Tullys, Tyrells, and Baratheons are all plotting the downfall of his House at various points, so.... yeah.

9 minutes ago, Aline de Gavrillac said:

The right to rule is not based on anything except birth right.

This is explicitly contradicted by the text, where we have at least three Great Councils to determine who should rule.  And besides, what does birth right mean?  Cognatic male primogeniture?  Agnatic primogeniture?  Lineal primogeniture?  All of this is debated within Westeros, so it's very much unclear what "birth right" means.  Daemon Blackfyre was legitimised, so are the Blackfyres now the legitimate heirs to Westeros, or does his original bastard-birth effectively disqualify him?  

You throw around terms and concepts you don't understand.

13 minutes ago, Aline de Gavrillac said:

  I believe Rickard Stark is guilty of conspiring against the Targaryens and so I am ok with whatever Aerys chooses to do with him and his family even to the point of leveling Winterfell down to pebble sized pieces. 

Wait, what?  Rickard Stark is guilty, so Aerys can kill of his entire family too?  Do you have ANY conception of a justice system, feudal, modern, or otherwise?

And we have no idea if Rickard Stark is guilty of anything of the sort, thanks very much.  We have an interesting and compelling fan theory about the Southron Ambitions conspiracy, but we have no idea what said power bloc was for!  It may very well have been to prevent exactly this kind of tyranny, where the Crown Prince gets to kidnap and rape and impregnate betrothed noblewomen, or gets to burn nobles alive on a whim, and call for the breaking of guest right through the murder of innocent young men.  That isn't a "conspiracy against the Targaryens", which implies some kind of active malice.  It's self protection.  

Buying a gun to defend your home isn't a "conspiracy against home invaders" either, which is exactly what you are arguing.

[Aline de Gavrillac]

19 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

OK so wait, the young squire was there to meekly stand by, but everyone else was there to fight?  Please provide the quote saying that.  All we know is that Brandon potentially threatened Rhaegar, and everyone else was not noted to have acted or spoken.  That Aerys spares the squire tells us nothing of the culpability of the other knights and lords there, since we know explicitly that he wants to murder Ned and Robert as well, despite their total and incontrovertible innocence.

The other dogs who got executed were not squires.  They were fighting men who rode into the castle to back up Brandon.

Also, please show where anyone takes up arms against Aerys himself.  The presumed threat is against Rhaegar and only Rhaegar.

Brandon called out for Rhaegar to die.  That is a threat against the royal family.  Rickard rode to the aid of his son.  Aerys sentenced Brandon to aid his son.  Fathers protecting their famillies.

It's pretty clear in context that Aerys executes Rickard because he suspects him of colluding with Brandon to threaten Rhaegar and the throne, not because of a not-canonical conspiracy.  It's why he calls for Ned and Robert's murder (because they are connected with Lyanna and therefore Rhaegar) and not Jon Arryn, or Hoster or Catelyn Tully (who, while intimately connected to SA, have no connection to Lyanna/Rhaegar).

Aerys would only call for Ned and Robert if he believed they were part of a conspiracy against his family.  No reason to consider them a threat otherwise.

You throw around terms and concepts you don't understand.

I understand fully.  Brandon threatened the Targaryens.  Aerys executed him as it is his right to do so.

Wait, what?  Rickard Stark is guilty, so Aerys can kill of his entire family too?  Do you have ANY conception of a justice system, feudal, modern, or otherwise?

Rickard Stark asked for a trial by combat, which Aerys had a right to give or to deny.  Rickard should have begged for mercy and asked forgiveness for his son's behavior.  I will give you that it was brutal to roast Rickard alive like that.  That was too much.  But the execution of Brandon and his companions was justified. 

 

 

 

Buying a gun to defend your home isn't a "conspiracy against home invaders" either, which is exactly what you are arguing.

Carrying your gun into another's home and making threats is home invasion.  In many jurisdictions that is enough for that family to kill you in the name of self-defense.  Brandon and his armed thugs invaded the home of the Targaryens.

Brandon and his companions were wrong to do what they did.  By wrong, I do not mean they sang out of tune during choir practice.  They threatened Aerys' family.  They deserved what they got. 

 

[Colonel Green]

Regarding the original question, first, Aerys was an unstable tyrant.

Second, given his paranoia, there was no reason not to think his suspicions wouldn’t eventually fall on the Tullys (Catelyn especially) given their connection to the Starks.

Third, Aerys murdered Tully bannermen.

Fourth, they negotiated a great deal.

[Stormking902]

On 22/12/2017 at 2:25 PM, Ser Leftwich said:

Remember that Aerys also had Jeffory Mallister executed along with the Starks, Kyle Royce, and Elbert Arryn (and possibly some of their fathers). Summarily executions of prominent family members of major lords is not a great way to inspire loyalty.

This rebellion also grew from concern about Aerys's tyranny. Hoster and Jon Arryn had plenty of grievances along with some need for heirs and some need to marry off daughters.

 

ETA: The Tyrell's didn't lose anyone to Aerys. If he had executed some important Hightower knight and Mace's oldest son, Mace might have reacted different. 

ETFA: We don't know what demands that Aerys had made of Hoster up to that point. Also, Hoster made an agreement with Jon and Ned, to attack Stoney Sept, it was only after the battle that he would have interacted with Robert as per an alliance.

This.........

 

Hoster already had a loyal bannerman who wanted justice (Mallister), and Hoster by all accounts was a good man excluding what he did to Lysa of course but this IN HIS OPINION was the best option for his daughter at the time, so the senseless and injust murder of Westeros nobility made it an easy choice to side against Aerys also his daughters gained the best matches as possible in two greatlords without heirs. It was a win win really in Hosters eyes, stopping a insane tyrant and having your grandsons rule over two great nations. 

[cpg2016]

24 minutes ago, Aline de Gavrillac said:

The other dogs who got executed were not squires.  They were fighting men who rode into the castle to back up Brandon.

A squire is a fighting man, whose explicit purpose is to back up his knight.  So.... why, exactly is this squire less "guilty"

24 minutes ago, Aline de Gavrillac said:

Brandon called out for Rhaegar to die.  That is a threat against the royal family.  Rickard rode to the aid of his son.  Aerys sentenced Brandon to aid his son.  Fathers protecting their famillies.

Seriously, READ THE BOOKS.  Rickard did not "ride to the aid of his son," he was SUMMONED by Aerys.  As in, it would have been equally "illegal" for him to refuse.  If he is a criminal for riding to Kings Landing, and a criminal for not riding to Kings Landing, it means there is no instance in which he can not commit a crime, despite having done nothing.  

And again... taking a legalistic viewpoint in which once crimes are committed, there is no need for a trial, once Rhaegar kidnaps and rapes Lyanna, he's already guilty and sentenced to die, so Brandon is technically only asking for the fulfillment of a just sentence, which is explicitly not a threat.  And also, to get nit picky, he never actually says that he wants to kill Rhaegar, so he isn't directly threatening anyone.  That inference might be natural, but that is exactly the sort of meaning and intent that trials are meant to parse.

28 minutes ago, Aline de Gavrillac said:

Aerys would only call for Ned and Robert if he believed they were part of a conspiracy against his family.  No reason to consider them a threat otherwise.

Or, if he was paranoid and insane.  

We know Ned and Robert aren't actively part of a conspiracy.  This isn't even debatable.  It just blows my mind that you are taking this tack.  We have a perfectly rational explanation for all this; Aerys II is insane, paranoid, and is so used to having his insane whims satisfied that he thinks he can do anything, including violating the very feudal contract that justifies his kingship!  We have multiple commentators within the text who say that what Aerys did was murder, and logic and legal custom agree.

30 minutes ago, Aline de Gavrillac said:

I understand fully.  Brandon threatened the Targaryens.  Aerys executed him as it is his right to do so.

Quote it.  Show me where Brandon personally threatens a Targaryen.  You are inferring that his statement that Rhaegar was to "come out and die" was a threat, but as I've said, it could just be a vague prophetic statement.  It can easily be read as a demand for justice.  And again, it is explicitly Brandon who says it, so there is NO justification for imprisoning and killing all those other young men.

32 minutes ago, Aline de Gavrillac said:

Rickard Stark asked for a trial by combat, which Aerys had a right to give or to deny.  Rickard should have begged for mercy and asked forgiveness for his son's behavior.  I will give you that it was brutal to roast Rickard alive like that.  That was too much.  But the execution of Brandon and his companions was justified. 

So you are admitting in one breath that Aerys murdered Rickard, and then holding to the idea that his execution of Brandon was justified?  We KNOW, and you're agreeing, that Aerys is a murderer and is insane, but somehow his treatment of Brandon, which we know is excessive, even if he did threaten Rhaegar, is justified?

34 minutes ago, Aline de Gavrillac said:

Carrying your gun into another's home and making threats is home invasion.  In many jurisdictions that is enough for that family to kill you in the name of self-defense.  Brandon and his armed thugs invaded the home of the Targaryens.

Well, if you want to continue this analogy, what Brandon did was to bring his "armed thugs" into the home of a pedophile and a rapist and a kidnapper, looking to rescue his sister.  Remember, he goes to the Red Keep thinking Rhaegar, a criminal, is there.  So it isn't a home invasion by any means, its a rescue operation.

35 minutes ago, Aline de Gavrillac said:

They threatened Aerys' family.  They deserved what they got. 

Well, aside from the fact that Aerys' son is a criminal himself, or that you still haven't provided any direct evidence of Brandon threatening a Targaryen (you are only inferring it), that they "deserved what they got" is pretty out of line.  A huge portion of the Seven Kingdoms, Rhaegar included! seems to think that quite the opposite, Aerys was way out of line in the way he acted, the point that he was going to be effectively deposed no matter what!  The text, and the characters from MANY sides, all agree that Aerys was out of line and acting extra-legally... but no, you have a bunch of assumptions and inferences which mean that every character who opines on the subject must be wrong, and Aerys in the right.

[Universal Sword Donor]

46 minutes ago, Aline de Gavrillac said:

Rickard rode to the aid of his son.  Aerys sentenced Brandon to aid his son.  Fathers protecting their famillies.

I'd recommend you read the book. It's honestly a great read:

"Aerys accused them of treason and summoned their fathers to court to answer the charge, with the sons as hostages. When they came, he had them murdered without trial. Fathers and sons both."

“The full depth of King Aerys’s madness was subsequently revealed in his depraved actions against Lord Stark, his heir, and their supporters after they demanded redress for Rhaegar’s wrongs. Instead of granting them fair hearing, King Aerys had them brutally slain, then followed these murders by demanding that Lord Jon Arryn execute his former wards, Robert Baratheon and Eddard Stark”

Jaime's reaction to the entire process says pretty much all you need to know: 

Yet he heard himself whisper, "Let them do it, and go away inside." That was what he'd done, when the Starks had died before him, Lord Rickard cooking in his armor while his son Brandon strangled himself trying to save him. 

[Spilledguts]

If you follow the story and the history, not one High House in Westeros ever supports the Targs unless under threat or with something incredible to gain. They do not inspire loyalty, even to families married into their line. They are mad, cruel and terrible rulers and its no stretch to say that all Lords want them gone. 

They no longer have dragons and the High Lords finally had a good reason to eliminate them. Shit, how many times is the Reynes of Castaemere mentionned versus the killings of the Targ family after the sack? Only Dorne is pissed and only because of Elia. Not a tear was shed for any dead dragonspawn.