Robert died before made king

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

9 minutes ago, Noble Lothar Frey said:

Prince Viserys was chosen to succeed by his father.  Nobody had a stronger claim than Viserys.  He became king the moment Aerys took his last breath.

It was thought so, but Aerys never declared him heir. Aegon/Jon would have strong claims. 

And frankly, at this point no-one would have given a damn what Aerys wanted. He decidedly chose not to have his throat cut and Jaime outrageously ignored that royal decree. 

[Endymion I Targaryen]

Robert's death would probably mean division on the rebel side.Jon, Ned and Hoster were not that close to Stannis to back him and there is no official downfall of house Targaryen. Their aim was to bring Aerys and Rhaegar to justice and get Lyanna back. Probably they wouldn't mind to crown Viserys or call a great council to decide. They seem wise men, especially Jon and Hoster.

If a Targaryen is to be crowned it is the oldest, Viserys, not baby Aegon.

Lannisters still march on KL, seize Rhaegar's family but probably don't kill them. Twyin sees the opportunity for a Cersei-Viserys betrothal. So I believe he chooses the royalist side. 

 

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

48 minutes ago, Endymion I Targaryen said:

If a Targaryen is to be crowned it is the oldest, Viserys, not baby Aegon.

I would have thought that the son of the heir came before the second son wouldn't they? Age is largely irrelevant. 

 

[Endymion I Targaryen]

22 hours ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

I would have thought that the son of the heir came before the second son wouldn't they? Age is largely irrelevant. 

 

There is no official law if that is what you mean. But in two occasions in the past (Laenor Velaryon, Maegor Brightflame) the older claimant was prefered. Having a baby on the throne means a long regency. There is also the opinion expressed by Roose Bolton that:

"....boy lords are the bane of any House" 

 

[BRANDON GREYSTARK]

Either Stannis is crowned or Aegon is .

[Dorian Martell's son]

On 1/3/2018 at 9:23 PM, Alex Gu said:

what if Robert died before he could become king would stanis be king or a great council has the options of stanis,viserys, maybe Jon.other.?

His son would make all the same mistakes he did, Jon Arryn would look into his parentage and on his deathbed, he asks Ned to go south to help him. The rest of the story happens as written 

[cpg2016]

On 1/5/2018 at 3:51 AM, Maester Yandel said:

There were 2 other "kings" when Joffrey was the actual king on the Iron Throne during the War of the Five Kings. Does that make the other 2 really kings too?

Even if Robert was proclaimed king by the rebel forces during his rebellion, it was an empty title UNTIL HE WAS ACTUALLY CROWNED KING AFTER THE REBELLION. He was just a claimant. Why would Stannis already succeed Robert in the Iron Throne if he died during the rebellion and is not yet the actual king? LOL

His coronation was not until late 283 AC, that was AFTER THE SACK OF KING'S LANDING and AFTER THE DEATH OF THE MAD KING.

I know my timeline well.  You should too.

Um, yes, it does.  Why is Tommen the king, or Aegon, or anyone?  Because they have subjects willing to proclaim him as such.

Robert's coronation established him as head of the Seven Kingdoms, but his elevation to monarchy can be reasonably dated to his accession by proclamation before the Trident.  Robb is King in the North by right of acclamation as well.  If he had won the War of the Five Kings, there would sitll be at least two kings running around, because he doesn't want the Iron Throne.

Your argument that there can only ever be one king in the entire world (which, essentially, is your point - sounds dumb when reduced to that, huh?) is prima facie wrong.  Of course there can be multiple kings, especially in a feudal setting.

And Stannis would succeed Robert as the nominal head of Robert's Rebellion because there is no other choice.  The rebels at that point are aiming for the complete overthrow and replacement of the monarchy, and they do so the moment Rhaegar shows up to fight for Aerys.  At that point, they have no choice but to keep fighting.

And by your argument, how can Robert ever be king?  The legitimate heir is Viserys.  Unless... and I know this is hard to believe - rebellions can have political legitimacy!  WHOA!  Mind blown, huh?

Go back to the ignorant cave you came from.

[Son of Man]

On 1/5/2018 at 5:43 AM, Noble Lothar Frey said:

A Game of Thrones would have been the first and the last book under your scenario.  And it would have been lucky to make it to paperback.  There is no story without Daenerys.  Stannis is a good addition.  Renly and Viserys were just props for Daenerys and Stannis story arcs.

I agree.

On 1/5/2018 at 5:48 AM, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

Eddard would declare for Jon. He has a stronger claim than Viserys, and is Lyanna's son.

Jon is a Stark bastard on a fisherman's daughter.  Nobody would believe a chin like that is anything but a Stark. 

[the trees have eyes]

On 05/01/2018 at 4:25 AM, cpg2016 said:

He is proclaimed king before the Battle of the Trident, or, in other words, "during the Rebellion".  Get your timeline straight.

So what's the point of the thread then if it's all cut and dried and Stannis "inherits" as heir to the "king presumptive" in Robert?

The OP specifically asks us to consider whether "a great council has the options of stanis,viserys, maybe Jon.other.? " so we have plenty of latitude to consider the succession to be an open matter and that no one owes Stannis any fealty.  You consider Stannis to be a shoe in and that's fine but it's not the only answer.

I doubt anyone would want a young man (is he still a boy?) who had been marooned at Storm's End and had no invovement in the planning or politics of the Rebellion to take the Crown.  Robert was only chose because he had a better claim than the other two leaders - Ned and Jon Arryn.  However, given Ned's notorious reluctance to get involved in Southron politics and his love for the North I think he would decline.  Similarly Jon Arryn is a succession crisis in the making a few years down the line and he would likely not receive wide support even if he wanted to take the crown.  Which does bring us back to Stannis but as chosen by a Council or by the rebel leaders shifting their support to Stannis but this is because they don't want it not because it's his inheritance.

[the trees have eyes]

13 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

Go back to the ignorant cave you came from.

Not my place to say it maybe but keep it friendly!

[cpg2016]

6 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

So what's the point of the thread then if it's all cut and dried and Stannis "inherits" as heir to the "king presumptive" in Robert?

There is no point to the thread.  That is my point.

6 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

The OP specifically asks us to consider whether "a great council has the options of stanis,viserys, maybe Jon.other.? " so we have plenty of latitude to consider the succession to be an open matter and that no one owes Stannis any fealty.  You consider Stannis to be a shoe in and that's fine but it's not the only answer.

In theory, a Great Council can choose anyone.  Look at Aegon V - he's clearly the only qualified candidate and yet receives a lot of disdain for spurious reasons.

6 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

I doubt anyone would want a young man (is he still a boy?) who had been marooned at Storm's End and had no invovement in the planning or politics of the Rebellion to take the Crown.

It's actually a man who has inspired fanatical loyalty in his men and has executed one of the most important, if passive, maneuvers of the war in keeping the Tyrells and the Reach tied down outside Storm's End, so from that perspective he's certainly qualified, and he's also 18 years old (b. 264 AC), so a couple years past what seems to be the traditional age for being considered a man.

6 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

Robert was only chose because he had a better claim than the other two leaders - Ned and Jon Arryn. 

He's actually the only one with a claim.  Also, as the principal battle commander for most of the war up til the Trident, he probably gets extra recognition for keeping it going.

6 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

However, given Ned's notorious reluctance to get involved in Southron politics and his love for the North I think he would decline.

This isn't a given and you've screwed up the timeline of his psychology.  Ned is perfectly willing to get "involved" in Southern politics, because even after his fostering at the Eyrie is done, he spends tons of time there, not to mention attending the unofficial council held during the Tourney at Harrenhal.  His disdain for the South is a direct result of his experiences in, and during the lead up to, Robert's Rebellion.  He's barely spent any of his adolescence or adulthood in the North; it's far more likely that Ned, in 282 AC, considers the Vale to be as much or more of a home as he does Winterfell, much like Jon Arryn is considered a second father figure (and probably has more influence on Ned than his own father, given how much more closely Ned's sense of honor hews to the Vale than to the North's conception of it).

6 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

Similarly Jon Arryn is a succession crisis in the making a few years down the line and he would likely not receive wide support even if he wanted to take the crown.

Yeah well lets not try and use future events to justify contemporary decisions, ya know?  People clearly still believe Jon Arryn is fertile, because Hoster Tully is perfectly willing to marry Lysa, a valuable marriage pawn, off to him.

6 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

Which does bring us back to Stannis but as chosen by a Council or by the rebel leaders shifting their support to Stannis but this is because they don't want it not because it's his inheritance.

Look, once Robert has been crowned, there isn't another choice.  We aren't debating whether Ned or Jon or Robert is the proper choice for king; they choose Robert, and once they choose Robert, there is only one possible choice of heir.  It can't be Viserys, because they've openly committed to destroy the Targaryens.  They've said that Rhaelle's line is the closest legitimate line, and that's that.  Stannis is Robert's heir, in the eyes of the rebels, from the moment he's crowned until the moment Robert has a trueborn son.

[the trees have eyes]

4 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

There is no point to the thread.  That is my point.

Ok.  Given that's your view you seem to have a lot to say!

4 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

It's actually a man who has inspired fanatical loyalty in his men and has executed one of the most important, if passive, maneuvers of the war in keeping the Tyrells and the Reach tied down outside Storm's End, so from that perspective he's certainly qualified, and he's also 18 years old (b. 264 AC), so a couple years past what seems to be the traditional age for being considered a man.

Stannis is not widely involved in the rebellion though.  He effectively sits it out behind the walls of Storms End through no fault of his own it must be said but while Ned and Robert are winning battles and Hoster Tully and Jon Arryn are raising their troops and planning and executing the rebellion Stanis is sat trapped in a castle.  It's not going to give him a great deal of influence on post-rebellion proceedings and there is no real reason to suppose any of Ned, Jon Arryn and Hoster even know him or would see him as a future king.  Robert looked the part and was the figurehead of the rebellion and a charismatic figure men liked to follow.  He turned out to be a terrible king, true enough, but he looked like he would be just the ticket.  Stannis is a different sort and plucking him from obscurity to replace Robert is not a given at all. 

Fanatical loyalty?  Idk about that: SE went to Renly after the rebellion after all and Penrose had no intention of handing SE over to Stannis in ACOK.  The garrison's loyalty was to Renly.  It was a significant display of determination and grit that became the cornerstone of his reputation but he's still relatively unknown and untested.  Mace dipped his banners to Ned Stark when Ned ended the siege after all not to Stannis.

Without Robert's charismatic presence I can easily see the nobility having another think about how to get out of Dodge.  If they did choose Stannis I don't think it would be out of adulation for his feats of daring and leadership, that's a different brother.

4 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

He's actually the only one with a claim.  Also, as the principal battle commander for most of the war up til the Trident, he probably gets extra recognition for keeping it going.

That only became relevant afterwards though.  The rebels were fighting for survival and to remove a tyrannical regime.  They only started to think about the post-rebellion settlement much later and their choice had to be accepted by the realm as a whole not just the Grand Alliance that won the throne.  I wish GRRM had left out the tenuous Targaryen connection for the Barratheons and amde the choice by the Council what is was: the best or at least the most popular and supported and the most crecible candidate available.  Stannis doesn't fit the same way Robert does.

4 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

This isn't a given and you've screwed up the timeline of his psychology.  Ned is perfectly willing to get "involved" in Southern politics, because even after his fostering at the Eyrie is done, he spends tons of time there, not to mention attending the unofficial council held during the Tourney at Harrenhal.  His disdain for the South is a direct result of his experiences in, and during the lead up to, Robert's Rebellion.  He's barely spent any of his adolescence or adulthood in the North; it's far more likely that Ned, in 282 AC, considers the Vale to be as much or more of a home as he does Winterfell, much like Jon Arryn is considered a second father figure (and probably has more influence on Ned than his own father, given how much more closely Ned's sense of honor hews to the Vale than to the North's conception of it).

I'm not sure I have.  Ned was always the quiet wolf and the war has cost him his father, his brother and his sister.  I don't see the young Ned any keener to be King than the older Ned was to become Hand.  Maybe he would have jumped at the suggestion that Robert's claim wasn't all that good and so his younger brother should not step up in his place and so Ned should take the job instead but I don't think that is likely.  If he had wanted the throne though I think both Jon Arryn and Hoster Tully would have backed him rather than Stannis and Stannis would have had no chance against that political alliance.

4 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

Yeah well lets not try and use future events to justify contemporary decisions, ya know?  People clearly still believe Jon Arryn is fertile, because Hoster Tully is perfectly willing to marry Lysa, a valuable marriage pawn, off to him.

I don't believe I was doing that. Jon Arryn has no children but he may well hope against experience to father children in which case he may well want the throne himself.  Again, Hoster Tully would back him to see his grandchild on the throne and so would Ned to see his foster father bringing peace to the kingdom.  And again, Stannis doesn't get a look in against this alliance.

4 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

Look, once Robert has been crowned, there isn't another choice.  We aren't debating whether Ned or Jon or Robert is the proper choice for king; they choose Robert, and once they choose Robert, there is only one possible choice of heir.  It can't be Viserys, because they've openly committed to destroy the Targaryens.  They've said that Rhaelle's line is the closest legitimate line, and that's that.  Stannis is Robert's heir, in the eyes of the rebels, from the moment he's crowned until the moment Robert has a trueborn son.

Look what?  The whole series is about making it abundantly clear there is always another choice.  Varys's riddle is about how and why people make that choice.  So is the entire series.  Stannis was Robert's heir but everyone even his brother Renly thought otherwise.  How can you be so closeminded about this? The books are there for the reading....

 

[Ser Micaelys]

In the situation that the rebellion still wins, Rhaegar is dead and the sack of kings landing still happens but Robert is dead before the sack or possibly on way or after killing Rhaegar, I think Tywin comes into play a bit. 

In the what if game I see a few possible resolutions to help stop the war, I would think the best way is to try to please as many people. Rebellion was mainly to overthrow Aerys and over the kidnapping of Lyanna, without Robert's Targ hate it could end very differently. I don't see the remaining people so opposed to supporting  a Targ claimant especially if it ends the killing and brings piece and means their heads aren't still wanted. A long regency may not be the ideal unless you want to take control and need the time to stabilize things and brings the two sides of the war back together, and if a marriage  pact sweetens the deal too.  I can def see a young heir being supported. Aegon if after Robert's death Tywin makes it clear he doesn't want the babe killed so it could be a pawn in his game, Jon Arryn could be his regent. Viserys I think would have a good chance, he is older, would be a shorter regency, I could see Tywin having Cersei marry him instead. Those of Robert's Rebellion can be pardons, have positions in the small council. If R+L=J is true and Jon is illegitimate, and Aegon is still dead he could have a claim as rightful heir, without having to protect him from Robert and if the Kings guard is not killed at ToJ and are with  him, this is Ned's nephew, he could brings all the factions together. It's a long regency because he is newborn which is the downside, but if it means peace and the right people are part of his regency it might be a pleasing offer to many, the remaining Targs can have Dragonstone. I see in this situation Tywin trying to make a good match of Cersei still, perhaps Edmure or Stannis, a close tie to Ned could mean Tywin could get a grandchild on the thrown instead of a child by marrying Cersei's daughter to baby Jon. I think if it all happens as the books except Robert dies stannis would have a chance, pressing the same claim as Robert as a Targ cousin and taking Aerys' line from the succession. He is older, he is not married at this point so Tywin can marry Cersei to him, he would be head of Storm's End, and Ned and Jon Arryn could pick him for the claim and as Robert's heir if they don't press their claim by right of conquest. Or the Lannisters claim it's theirs by right of conquests and the rest accept it or war continues.

Possibly the seven kingdoms break up too.

I think without a clear Robert figure head, an easy choice, and without his interferences of the clean up of the Targs, there would be more options that they would have to weigh up. It really depends on what they can get away with and how it benefits the ones with the power to 'choose'. 

Those in power don't want it to be too messy, it has to make some sort of sense, a valid excuse otherwise they are creating a dangerous precedent that weakens the claimant and opens up to more rebellion, puts their own claims and that of their future lines at risk.

[Blackfish Tully]

a lot would depend on when Robert died , if Ned, Jon & Hoster had already bent the knee to Robert and sworn oath's to him as their King then there is no doubt that they would consider their duty to install Stannis on the Iron Throne and would go to war with anyone who disagreed  with that . It would not matter to them whether or not he was crowned or not , they bent their knee to Robert Baratheon as their King and Stannis was his legal heir and that would be all they would care about . 

[cpg2016]

On 1/10/2018 at 8:04 PM, the trees have eyes said:

Stannis is not widely involved in the rebellion though.  He effectively sits it out behind the walls of Storms End through no fault of his own it must be said but while Ned and Robert are winning battles and Hoster Tully and Jon Arryn are raising their troops and planning and executing the rebellion Stanis is sat trapped in a castle.  It's not going to give him a great deal of influence on post-rebellion proceedings and there is no real reason to suppose any of Ned, Jon Arryn and Hoster even know him or would see him as a future king.  Robert looked the part and was the figurehead of the rebellion and a charismatic figure men liked to follow.  He turned out to be a terrible king, true enough, but he looked like he would be just the ticket.  Stannis is a different sort and plucking him from obscurity to replace Robert is not a given at all. 

This argument is just wrong, though.  Aerys II has no role in the war either - he sits behind some walls and lets other people fight.

Nor is there any reason Hoster Tully knows Ned Stark from a hole in the wall.  So lets try for some consistency in your reasoning.

And Stannis is not "obscure".  He's the second son and and an adult male of one of the most powerful Houses in Westeros; it's literally inconceivable that he hasn't had a political education and exposure to the political elites of Westeros.  He's now the Lord of House Baratheon in this alternate timeline; no one is going to give a shit if he's "obscure"; and by the way, Stannis isn't "sitting it out".  He's commanded to hold Storm's End, and he does - no one is going to think less of him for executing the exact orders he was given!  

You are making WAY too many assumptions that would directly contradict what we should expect from the characters in the text.  

On 1/10/2018 at 8:04 PM, the trees have eyes said:

Fanatical loyalty?  Idk about that: SE went to Renly after the rebellion after all and Penrose had no intention of handing SE over to Stannis in ACOK.  The garrison's loyalty was to Renly.  It was a significant display of determination and grit that became the cornerstone of his reputation but he's still relatively unknown and untested.  Mace dipped his banners to Ned Stark when Ned ended the siege after all not to Stannis.

Alright, if you don't understand the text, admit it and we can talk at a more appropriate level.  But please don't try and slip something this stupid and silly and obvious by me.  Storm's End goes to Renly because Stannis gets Dragonstone.  This isn't about the loyalty of the garrison, it's that Robert, not Stannis, has a legal right to Storm's End and he gives it to Renly because he's honoring Stannis by putting him in the traditional seat of the royal heir (and, also, presumably putting an experienced commander and adult in charge of what is likely to be a hotbed of Targaryen loyalty).

And the garrison is literally on the verge of cannibalism when Davos shows up, and they haven't betrayed the castle.  That is about as close to a definition of "fanatical loyalty" as I can think of.

And Mace dips his banners to Ned because (a) Ned is a Lord and Stannis isn't, and (b) Ned is who is compelling him to kneel, not the besieged Stannis.  If you can't understand the political subtleties there, don't argue about them.

On 1/10/2018 at 8:04 PM, the trees have eyes said:

That only became relevant afterwards though.  The rebels were fighting for survival and to remove a tyrannical regime.  They only started to think about the post-rebellion settlement much later and their choice had to be accepted by the realm as a whole not just the Grand Alliance that won the throne.  I wish GRRM had left out the tenuous Targaryen connection for the Barratheons and amde the choice by the Council what is was: the best or at least the most popular and supported and the most crecible candidate available.  Stannis doesn't fit the same way Robert does.

So your argument is resting on the fact that you don't like the reasoning of GRRM?  Wow, very convincing.  Robert is proclaimed because of his Targaryen heritage, full stop.  There is no other reason.  Ned is the more wronged party by Aerys.  Jon Arryn is the man who actually instigates the Rebellion.  Robert's involvement is entirely secondary until the point he's acclaimed king.

The rebels begin to think about the political aftermath of their Rebellion only after Rhaegar takes up arms for his father.  That cannot be overstated.

So lets recap.  Robert Baratheon is acclaimed king because of his ancestry, not his actions or his motivations.  Guess what that means?  Oh, you can't make the obvious connection?  I'll spell it out - Stannis Baratheon has the same ancestry!  Which means, the entire reason Robert becomes king, also applies now in a perfect parallel to Stannis!  And your rebuttal to this is a 5 years old's "well, I don't like that reasoning, I'm going to invent a new one".

Robert is proclaimed on the strength of his blood, not by a Great Council weighing the pro's and con's of various candidates.  Which means there is no alternative to Stannis.

On 1/10/2018 at 8:04 PM, the trees have eyes said:

I don't believe I was doing that. Jon Arryn has no children but he may well hope against experience to father children in which case he may well want the throne himself.  Again, Hoster Tully would back him to see his grandchild on the throne and so would Ned to see his foster father bringing peace to the kingdom.  And again, Stannis doesn't get a look in against this alliance.

But you haven't explained why he doesn't.... Robert brings two thing Stannis doesn't, and that is an informal foster relationship with Jon Arryn. and Ned's friendship.  But the rebels are already thrown in against the Targs, and have already proclaimed a Baratheon as king.  Which means they've already all agreed to go by blood and not "merit" as you see it.

You're making these absurd claims, but you have to explain why this didn't happen in our timeline?  None of it is convincing if you can't do that.  Why didn't Jon Arryn take the throne, for the all the reasons you explain above?  He proclaimed Robert instead.  You have not put forth one argument, let alone a convincing one, to the fact that Stannis is Robert's legal heir!

On 1/10/2018 at 8:04 PM, the trees have eyes said:

Look what?  The whole series is about making it abundantly clear there is always another choice.  Varys's riddle is about how and why people make that choice.  So is the entire series.  Stannis was Robert's heir but everyone even his brother Renly thought otherwise.  How can you be so closeminded about this? The books are there for the reading....

The books also have slaveholders - are you arguing for slavery as well?  The books are most certainly not about making it clear "there is always another choice".  One of the most poignant moments in the main novels is Brienne thinking "no chance, and no choice" when fighting Rorge and Biter & Co.  The whole idea is she could have a choice (let the kids die and save herself), but that true moral courage, and the meaning of knighthood, means fighting for those who can't defend themselves.  Ditto Dunk saving Tanselle Too-Tall.

Renly is in the books precisely so we can see how dangerous and shallow he and his ideas of legitimacy are.  

The difference between my being closeminded and you being willing to accept any alternate universe is that unlike you, I seem to have actually read the books!  I understand that Robert is chosen not for some existential reason, but because his Targaryen heritage gives him a legitimacy the other rebels lack.  I understand that Renly is repeatedly presented as a vain and immoral man, hungry and grasping for power, and very much NOT as a legitimate claimant to the Throne, and the only people who back him do so explicitly for that reason (because they want more power at any cost), and not for moral or legal reasons.

And Varys' riddle has literally nothing to do with choice, except on the outermost surface (which unsurprisingly seems to be about as deep as your understanding goes).  It's about perception and how it relates to power, that Tyrion can rise above the prejudice and wield actual power, if he understands how to manipulate opinion.

[Tygett Lannister]

Stannis or Tywin

[the trees have eyes]

21 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

This argument is just wrong, though.  Aerys II has no role in the war either - he sits behind some walls and lets other people fight.

Nor is there any reason Hoster Tully knows Ned Stark from a hole in the wall.  So lets try for some consistency in your reasoning.

And Stannis is not "obscure".  He's the second son and and an adult male of one of the most powerful Houses in Westeros; it's literally inconceivable that he hasn't had a political education and exposure to the political elites of Westeros.  He's now the Lord of House Baratheon in this alternate timeline; no one is going to give a shit if he's "obscure"; and by the way, Stannis isn't "sitting it out".  He's commanded to hold Storm's End, and he does - no one is going to think less of him for executing the exact orders he was given!  

You are making WAY too many assumptions that would directly contradict what we should expect from the characters in the text.  

Alright, if you don't understand the text, admit it and we can talk at a more appropriate level.  But please don't try and slip something this stupid and silly and obvious by me.  Storm's End goes to Renly because Stannis gets Dragonstone.  This isn't about the loyalty of the garrison, it's that Robert, not Stannis, has a legal right to Storm's End and he gives it to Renly because he's honoring Stannis by putting him in the traditional seat of the royal heir (and, also, presumably putting an experienced commander and adult in charge of what is likely to be a hotbed of Targaryen loyalty).

And the garrison is literally on the verge of cannibalism when Davos shows up, and they haven't betrayed the castle.  That is about as close to a definition of "fanatical loyalty" as I can think of.

And Mace dips his banners to Ned because (a) Ned is a Lord and Stannis isn't, and (b) Ned is who is compelling him to kneel, not the besieged Stannis.  If you can't understand the political subtleties there, don't argue about them.

So your argument is resting on the fact that you don't like the reasoning of GRRM?  Wow, very convincing.  Robert is proclaimed because of his Targaryen heritage, full stop.  There is no other reason.  Ned is the more wronged party by Aerys.  Jon Arryn is the man who actually instigates the Rebellion.  Robert's involvement is entirely secondary until the point he's acclaimed king.

The rebels begin to think about the political aftermath of their Rebellion only after Rhaegar takes up arms for his father.  That cannot be overstated.

So lets recap.  Robert Baratheon is acclaimed king because of his ancestry, not his actions or his motivations.  Guess what that means?  Oh, you can't make the obvious connection?  I'll spell it out - Stannis Baratheon has the same ancestry!  Which means, the entire reason Robert becomes king, also applies now in a perfect parallel to Stannis!  And your rebuttal to this is a 5 years old's "well, I don't like that reasoning, I'm going to invent a new one".

Robert is proclaimed on the strength of his blood, not by a Great Council weighing the pro's and con's of various candidates.  Which means there is no alternative to Stannis.

But you haven't explained why he doesn't.... Robert brings two thing Stannis doesn't, and that is an informal foster relationship with Jon Arryn. and Ned's friendship.  But the rebels are already thrown in against the Targs, and have already proclaimed a Baratheon as king.  Which means they've already all agreed to go by blood and not "merit" as you see it.

You're making these absurd claims, but you have to explain why this didn't happen in our timeline?  None of it is convincing if you can't do that.  Why didn't Jon Arryn take the throne, for the all the reasons you explain above?  He proclaimed Robert instead.  You have not put forth one argument, let alone a convincing one, to the fact that Stannis is Robert's legal heir!

The books also have slaveholders - are you arguing for slavery as well?  The books are most certainly not about making it clear "there is always another choice".  One of the most poignant moments in the main novels is Brienne thinking "no chance, and no choice" when fighting Rorge and Biter & Co.  The whole idea is she could have a choice (let the kids die and save herself), but that true moral courage, and the meaning of knighthood, means fighting for those who can't defend themselves.  Ditto Dunk saving Tanselle Too-Tall.

Renly is in the books precisely so we can see how dangerous and shallow he and his ideas of legitimacy are.  

The difference between my being closeminded and you being willing to accept any alternate universe is that unlike you, I seem to have actually read the books!  I understand that Robert is chosen not for some existential reason, but because his Targaryen heritage gives him a legitimacy the other rebels lack.  I understand that Renly is repeatedly presented as a vain and immoral man, hungry and grasping for power, and very much NOT as a legitimate claimant to the Throne, and the only people who back him do so explicitly for that reason (because they want more power at any cost), and not for moral or legal reasons.

And Varys' riddle has literally nothing to do with choice, except on the outermost surface (which unsurprisingly seems to be about as deep as your understanding goes).  It's about perception and how it relates to power, that Tyrion can rise above the prejudice and wield actual power, if he understands how to manipulate opinion.

TLDR  Guy thinks thread is pointless but can't help being assuming his opinion is the only valid one and lecturing everyone else. 

My New Year's Resolution was not to get drawn into pointless debates on this forum with argumentative dudes such as yourself so if you really think some of the things you typed above - and you seem to - I shall bid you farewell!

[Maester Yandel]

On 1/10/2018 at 8:08 AM, cpg2016 said:

Um, yes, it does.  Why is Tommen the king, or Aegon, or anyone?  Because they have subjects willing to proclaim him as such.

Robert's coronation established him as head of the Seven Kingdoms, but his elevation to monarchy can be reasonably dated to his accession by proclamation before the Trident.  Robb is King in the North by right of acclamation as well.  If he had won the War of the Five Kings, there would sitll be at least two kings running around, because he doesn't want the Iron Throne.

Your argument that there can only ever be one king in the entire world (which, essentially, is your point - sounds dumb when reduced to that, huh?) is prima facie wrong.  Of course there can be multiple kings, especially in a feudal setting.

And Stannis would succeed Robert as the nominal head of Robert's Rebellion because there is no other choice.  The rebels at that point are aiming for the complete overthrow and replacement of the monarchy, and they do so the moment Rhaegar shows up to fight for Aerys.  At that point, they have no choice but to keep fighting.

And by your argument, how can Robert ever be king?  The legitimate heir is Viserys.  Unless... and I know this is hard to believe - rebellions can have political legitimacy!  WHOA!  Mind blown, huh?

Go back to the ignorant cave you came from.

This is just literally about Robert dying before being crowned as king and you made a whole mess on that.

To quote Bael's Bastard (someone who is in this group since 2013 and actually knows things). "If Robert never becomes king I don't see Stannis being in line. I don't see them going outside the three rebel leaders. Jon has no children and a terrible history of trying to produce one. Ned already has an heir by war's end, and a bastard as far as anyone knows."

And that actually made sense since if ROBERT IS NOT YET KING then why would Stannis already inherit the Iron Throne? They're just claimants. If Robert dies a king then Stannis has all the rights on ruling after him. BUT THAT WASN'T THE CASE HERE! (Mind blown, huh?)

Oh and, YES. Last time I checked, there should only be one king in Westeros SINCE Aegon's Conquest. All the claimants are just claimants until they actually have the throne or conquered the whole continent.

You clearly didn't understand the whole thread to begin with and you're out here thinking you know everything too damn well when clearly you don't! You're just stating OPINIONS yet you have the audacity calling everyone else stupid.

If calling me ignorant makes you sleep at night then go off, I guess.

[Frey Kings]

On 1/5/2018 at 7:09 AM, Endymion I Targaryen said:

Robert's death would probably mean division on the rebel side.Jon, Ned and Hoster were not that close to Stannis to back him and there is no official downfall of house Targaryen. Their aim was to bring Aerys and Rhaegar to justice and get Lyanna back. Probably they wouldn't mind to crown Viserys or call a great council to decide. They seem wise men, especially Jon and Hoster.

If a Targaryen is to be crowned it is the oldest, Viserys, not baby Aegon.

Lannisters still march on KL, seize Rhaegar's family but probably don't kill them. Twyin sees the opportunity for a Cersei-Viserys betrothal. So I believe he chooses the royalist side. 

 

The rebellion was  to overthrow the crown that was forged by the Targaryens that ruled over them for 300 years. That was no talk of making someone else King and Queen. It was a Targaryen conquest and submission of the people to 7k and swearing oaths of fealtys to submit to Targaryen rule. 

 

When people back in the day was actively trying to overthrow the British Monach, they didn't talk about being having Braveheart being the next king.

[cpg2016]

On 1/15/2018 at 7:59 PM, Maester Yandel said:

And that actually made sense since if ROBERT IS NOT YET KING then why would Stannis already inherit the Iron Throne? They're just claimants. If Robert dies a king then Stannis has all the rights on ruling after him. BUT THAT WASN'T THE CASE HERE! (Mind blown, huh?)

Here's the issue... you've created some ridiculous question which isn't what the OP said.  You quoted but didn't understand.  The question is not "If Robert dies before becoming King" but, "if Robert dies before being crowned".  Which means that the rebels have acclaimed Robert, and therefore his heirs, as the rightful rulers of Westeros.  What if Robert had a grown son when he was acclaimed and not crowned?  Lot less debate, I'm guessing.  Because many people here want to make the entire concept of Robert's Rebellion that of a popularity contest, where Robert wins because he's handsome and charismatic.  Ditto why there are people who actually support Renly, who has nothing to recommend him beyond his charm and Mace Tyrell's overweening ambition.  When in fact there is a ton of legal nuance to proclaiming Robert king in the first place.

The question is thus: is Robert a king upon being acclaimed, or being crowned?  Now, from a legalistic perspective, that's a very difficult question to answer.  But for the rebels, it's super easy - once they acclaim him, he's their king, with all the legal rights, privileges, and duties associated with it.  They can't "crown" him because they don't have access to the royal paraphernalia.  If you're arguing that Stannis doesn't inherit Robert's claim, you (a) are rejecting the entire system of feudal aristocracy underlying Westeros, and (b) arguing that the rebels would just go home.  Because to them, they've affirmed the legitimacy of Robert's claim, which means they're also affirming the legitimacy of Stannis (and then Renly's) claims too!

On 1/15/2018 at 7:59 PM, Maester Yandel said:

Oh and, YES. Last time I checked, there should only be one king in Westeros SINCE Aegon's Conquest. All the claimants are just claimants until they actually have the throne or conquered the whole continent.

So is Aerys a claimant during Robert's Rebellion?  What makes someone a claimant?  Having the Iron Throne is a nice symbol of legitimacy, but as Tywin might tell you, the reality of power is more important than the appearance of power.  This is why I am positing you aren't very bright; you're very clearly not actually thinking through the points you're making.  Robert's "claim" is supported by the majority of Westeros, in almost every single possible sense.  Feudal monarchy is assisted by the appearances of kingship (the crown, the throne, etc), but at the end of the day the Targaryens were kings only because their vassals knelt to them; if most of those vassals are kneeling to Robert, why shouldn't he be considered the rightful king and Aerys the pretender?  You don't understand the historical and textual nuance.

On 1/15/2018 at 7:59 PM, Maester Yandel said:

You clearly didn't understand the whole thread to begin with and you're out here thinking you know everything too damn well when clearly you don't! You're just stating OPINIONS yet you have the audacity calling everyone else stupid.

It's quite clear I understood the thread better than you, at least, because I'm the only one who seems to get that once the rebels acclaim Robert, they are simultaneously endorsing his entire line.  If you don't understand the concept of kingship-by-acclamation, or the idea of hereditary monarchy, then there is no way I can educate you.