Jump to content

Barristan Selmy: Hero or Turncoat?


Blackfish Blues

Recommended Posts

Not to disagree, but the problem is: we don't know the terms of the Kingsguard vows, and it's crucial.

I agree that we do not know the exact KG vows, but I do not think its crucial, at least not in this context. We also know a few things about the vows: that the KG is sworn for life, cannot marry or hold lands, must obey the King and must defend the King and those of the Royal Blood and must never bring harm upon the family. After that, no question about it, I am guessing what the terms are.

But for the purposes of this discussion, that is more than enough. It says that the KG will defend the Royal blood. Well, there was Royal Blood on Dragonstone for 9 months – Viserys, the Queen and an unborn child (unlikely Selmy knew about Dany). That makes AT LEAST two of the Royal blood still alive. Hence, its not much of a stretch to say that Selmy’s duty was with them.

In fact, its contradictory to say otherwise if we believe that Dayne, Hightower and Whent were at the TOJ to defend the unborn child of Rhaegar Targaryen. Was that blood or not? If they were only held to their vows as long as Aerys sat the Iron Throne, why not leave or surrender immediately? Because, quite simply, they were still honor bound to defend the blood.

It's likely that they include allowance for a change in kingship; the question is how the poor Kingsguardsman is supposed to determine whether the new King deserves his allegiance (presuming he can't continue allegiance to the previous king).

Kinship, maybe, but not KINGship. The Targs are an unbroken line for nearly 300 years; very little issue in deciding who to defend (with the Dance of Dragons and the Blakcfyre Rebellion as obvious exceptions). And here its far far far more stark- the Usurper was not a Targ (and did not “pretend” to be a Targ; and that word “pretend” is important- Robert was not a “pretender”; he was taking by conquest); the King, his son and his wife certainly were. That seems pretty clear that the KG are STILL bound by their duty to defend the King’s Blood. AND the unavoidable fact that as soon as Aerys bled out, Viserys was the King.

And while I do not know the KG oath, I am going out on a limb here and say there is nothing legal-ese regarding “And should the King be slain in a horribly, bloody coup, and should there be a great counsel of some-sort that recognizes as King the coup-leader, I shall serve that Usurper as if he were King.” I think the oath is probably very simple and very clear: defend the King and his blood.

I don't think Ned necessarily believed or pretended that the KG oath is absolute.

I completely disagree. Ned seems completely obsessed with it; states to Robert that they never swore an oath to defend the King (in reference to Jaime). I agree that Ned makes an EXCEPTION for Selmy, but it seems odd that he can, given his abject hatred of Jaime. Ned is, generally, also, transfixed with the ideas of oaths and honor and a person’s word. I find it completely at-odds that he loves one (Selmy) and hates the other (Jaime). And, it should be noted that at the time he was taken, SELMY was in KL… Jaime was not.

Second, despite the similarities b/t Jaime and Selmy, there are glaring differences, too - namely that Jaime actually killed the one king that there was no doubt he was sworn to protect - he killed Aerys, before he had died or abdicated.

Agreed. But Jaime's "bad" act does not really excuse Selmy's. How does Jaime killing Aerys forgive Selmy’s oath to the King (Aerys) and his blood?

I say it doesn’t, and FUNNY THING- Selmy agrees with me when he states that he is shamed that he served Robert I (to a degree- its safe to say that Selmy liked Robert; most people did).

And Jaime may have KILLED Aerys, but they ALL abandoned Viserys and the Queen (and eventually Dany). You cannot really talk that one away. Ned never even tries.

It turns out to have been for a good reason, a compelling reason, as we find out much later, but a Kingsguard oath would be useless if it permitted the knight to substitute his judgment for the King's, especially to the point of taking the King's life!

That is a sticky wicket, you would agree, considering that by following the King’s order in this case would require Jaime to kill thousands of innocent people. To allow Aersy to live kept that possibility alive. Regardless, lets say I agree: In a light most favorable to your argument, this dams Selmy EVEN MORE! Therefore, I say that that makes it so Selmy was EVEN MORE obligated to go after Viserys and defend the boy until he could grow to adulthood. He is NOT ALLOWED to substitute his own judgment! He cannot say “Who is King?” He has to follow the blood. And the blood runs through Viserys, not some guy with a beard (or to get technical, MORE Targ blood runs through Viserys).

Viserys was underage, exiled, and unsupported. Some combination of those facts, perhaps in view of Baratheon's colorable claim to the throne, might have permitted or even required Selmy to transfer allegiance. Or not. Hard to know, without the terms of the oath.

“… but a Kingsguard oath would be useless if it permitted the knight to substitute his judgment for the King's,”

I already addressed this because I doubt the oath says anything along the lines of “If after a bloody Rebellion, a Counsel calls a new King, I will follow that new King…” In fact, this beguiles your earlier point that Selmy could have substituted his own judgment: it makes no difference what Viserys’ position or age or roll was (to say nothing of his mother)- HE WAS THE KING! To give Selmy such a pass- by saying “Well, we don’t know what the oath says so…” is disingenuous: it says to protect the Royal Blood, and most likely does not say “Unless there is a bloody rebellion and I can decide to serve another King.” Hence, we have enough to go on and I think Selmy has enough to go on: that’s why he is shamed by his behavior.

But these are hardly disagreements at all, more just quibbles. We largely seem to agree on Selmy, and indeed on Jaime. Jaime without doubt completely forsook his vows, yet it may indeed have been the best thing he did. From a humanitarian POV, Selmy may have held too close to his vows, but then again he probably didn't know about the plan to burn all of KL. And I agree it's fairly likely that the oath in fact did not permit Selmy to abandon Viserys to his exile (but we can't really know).

Agreed. :agree: (and I should have read this before I made the argument above, but I wrote it so- SCREW IT – I’m not deleting it now!). However, I will say that Jaime PROBABLY stayed true to his oath as a knight which most likely states that he must defend the weak. Conflict of duties: the hallmark of the series.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It just makes no sense that Aegon Targaryen who created the KG would leave a loophole within the KG oath for possible oathbreakers so that they can serve a usurper with a clear conscience. The Dance of Dragons is another matter, as Rhaenyra Targaryen was the chosen heir of Viserys I, and Criston Cole, the LC of the KG, entered the field of politics (and betrayal) by crowning Aegon II. But no one could doubt that both pretenders were Targaryens, so the KG divided on the matter. Some followed Rhaenyra, some followed Aegon II. But during the Blackfyre rebellions the KG seems to have stood firmly at the side of Daeron II. At least we don't know yet that Daemon I draw KG members of Daeron into his camp, Daemon II certainly did no such thing.

And I assume that after the Dance of Dragons the subsequent LC of the KG in particular, and the KG in general were put in line concerning their involvement in politics. There was no 'Kingmaker' again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a little rusty on this, so perhaps someone could help me out. What is the standard procedure for aging members of the KG? Is the attrition rate assumed to be so high that most won't live long enough to retire? Surely its impractical for a King to have bodyguards that are too old to effectively protect him? Especially as a new king doesn't seem to choose a new group of 7 when he is crowned.

Surely when you reach a certain age, doddering around in all-white isn't such a great idea?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a little rusty on this, so perhaps someone could help me out. What is the standard procedure for aging members of the KG? Is the attrition rate assumed to be so high that most won't live long enough to retire? Surely its impractical for a King to have bodyguards that are too old to effectively protect him? Especially as a new king doesn't seem to choose a new group of 7 when he is crowned.

Surely when you reach a certain age, doddering around in all-white isn't such a great idea?

It's explicitly said that a member of the king's guard serves for life. Barristan I believe was the first case in the history of the Kingsguard of any member being released from their oaths without dying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They actually do serve for life, apparently. See, the thing is that the Kingsguard is more or less a ceremonial position. In times of war, the King will be mostly protected by the goldcloaks and by the military of his vassals. If he is ever in a situation where he is being attacked one-on-one with only his guards to protect him, the only two options are that his Kingsguard will be able to defend him effectively OR the Kingsguard will be slain, enabling him to appoint new ones (assuming that he himself survives).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huh. So I guess it's sort of like the Westeros version of the Supreme Court. I will admit, the image of KG sitting around in their tower yelling about "Maaaaattlooooock" amuses me :laugh:

To the point of this thread, I tend to look at Barristan as both hero and turncoat to varying degrees. In many ways I think his character is a interesting examination on the notion of 'honor'. Does, by trying so hard to keep his honor, Barristan ultimately end up making dishonorable choices? Questions of honor are, in some ways, a major theme of the series, most obviously demonstrated by Ned and his downfall. Barristan has a complexity to him, like most real people and most well-written characters. I think that we are even arguing the morality of such a 'minor' character is a testament to the depth of characterization in the books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that we do not know the exact KG vows, but I do not think its crucial, at least not in this context. We also know a few things about the vows: that the KG is sworn for life, cannot marry or hold lands, must obey the King and must defend the King and those of the Royal Blood and must never bring harm upon the family. After that, no question about it, I am guessing what the terms are.

But for the purposes of this discussion, that is more than enough. It says that the KG will defend the Royal blood. Well, there was Royal Blood on Dragonstone for 9 months – Viserys, the Queen and an unborn child (unlikely Selmy knew about Dany). That makes AT LEAST two of the Royal blood still alive. Hence, its not much of a stretch to say that Selmy’s duty was with them.

In fact, its contradictory to say otherwise if we believe that Dayne, Hightower and Whent were at the TOJ to defend the unborn child of Rhaegar Targaryen. Was that blood or not? If they were only held to their vows as long as Aerys sat the Iron Throne, why not leave or surrender immediately? Because, quite simply, they were still honor bound to defend the blood.

Which brings up a question: who died first, Rhaegar or Aerys II?

We wonder why three KG were at the TOJ - seems a bit excessive for following the orders of a mere prince.

Is it possible that the TOJ scene was actually subsequent to Rhaegar (and the 3 KG) finding out that KL was lost and Aerys II dead?

If so then the KG were obliged to protect Rhaegar and his offspring - Viserys and Rhaella would be entirely secondary if Rhaegar had in fact become king, however briefly.

I hope somebody has certain knowledge of the timeline of the relevant events during Robert's Rebellion.

If Aerys died first it would explain the 3 KG at the TOJ, and would substantially weaken Daenerys' claim to the throne. It would make Selmy's decision to support Robert more defensible. (However, I don't think he believed Rhaegar had outlived Aerys II, so his decision was probably based on assuming Viserys was alive and the "rightful" king.) If R+L=J then Jon would be the true king, IF the NW vows can be reconciled with being King of the Seven Kingdoms ... which I think is possible.

More directly on topic, the allegiance of the KG has been problematical a number of times in history. Aside from Jaime "kingslayer", and Selmy arguably shifting allegiance to the de facto king, I got this from the Concordance: "There have been times during its history where the Kingsguard has been divided against itself, most notably and bitterly during the Dance of the Dragons (III: 754)." That's when Erryk and Arryk (Darklyn?), brothers and both members of the KG, died on each other's swords. I think there was a similar problem in the Blackfyre Rebellion. So apparently, even in the 300 or so years of the KG, there have been differing decisions and interpretations of how the vows should be honored.

But that still doesn't resolve whether Selmy is a turncoat or not.

Kinship, maybe, but not KINGship. The Targs are an unbroken line for nearly 300 years; very little issue in deciding who to defend (with the Dance of Dragons and the Blakcfyre Rebellion as obvious exceptions). And here its far far far more stark- the Usurper was not a Targ (and did not “pretend” to be a Targ; and that word “pretend” is important- Robert was not a “pretender”; he was taking by conquest); the King, his son and his wife certainly were. That seems pretty clear that the KG are STILL bound by their duty to defend the King’s Blood. AND the unavoidable fact that as soon as Aerys bled out, Viserys was the King.

First, I thought that Robert DID make a claim to priority based on Targaryen heredity, even though he's a Baratheon. He's from a bastard of a female Targaryen queen, and had a colorable claim to priority.

Second, the "conquest" thing goes without saying; regardless of pedigree, a king can't rule without the capacity to force compliance; and conversely, the capacity to force compliance defines the ruler.

Third, even if Robert's claim by heredity was invalid, and you reject that kingship can be earned through conquest, was Viserys king, or was baby [Jon]?

And while I do not know the KG oath, I am going out on a limb here and say there is nothing legal-ese regarding “And should the King be slain in a horribly, bloody coup, and should there be a great counsel of some-sort that recognizes as King the coup-leader, I shall serve that Usurper as if he were King.” I think the oath is probably very simple and very clear: defend the King and his blood.

The vows can be no better defined than their words. Your nice, simple oath relies on the definition of "king", which has been argued and fought over innumerable times. I agree the oath was unlikely to define it, leaving the title "king" as subject to interpretation for a KG as for anybody else.

Usually, of course, it's clear, but rebellions are generally associated with a controversy over who is the true king. I think your claim that Robert did not assert a hereditary right to the throne is mistaken. It involved bastardy and a female Targaryen; but if the rules aren't spelled out in the oath, what's to stop Selmy from accepting Robert and Ned's interpretation of who is truly king?

Ned is, generally, also, transfixed with the ideas of oaths and honor and a person’s word. I find it completely at-odds that he loves one (Selmy) and hates the other (Jaime). And, it should be noted that at the time he was taken, SELMY was in KL… Jaime was not.

It's strangely easy to get outraged by the injustices done by fictional characters! Yes, Ned was considered the soul of honor, but his judgment was subject to lapses. There are two factors here: one is that Selmy arguably never violated his vows, but instead simply accepted as fact that Robert had become King while he (Selmy) was incapacitated; being sworn to defend the King, he proceeded to do so. This was probably easier for Ned to conclude due to the second factor: Ned strongly believed Robert should be King.

It's unfortunate that Ned was unaware of the plan to burn all of KL; but, being unaware of it, how could he draw any good conclusion about Jaime? The fact that it was Jaime's father who sacked KL can't have helped any; it just looked like Jaime was in league with Tywin to replace Aerys II. It's not Ned's fault that he condemns Jaime, and yet it still may have been Jaime's best acts to kill the Hand and Aerys II.

And Jaime may have KILLED Aerys, but they ALL abandoned Viserys and the Queen (and eventually Dany). You cannot really talk that one away. Ned never even tries.

Which may have been because he was harboring the true king, his nephew.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It just makes no sense that Aegon Targaryen who created the KG would leave a loophole within the KG oath for possible oathbreakers so that they can serve a usurper with a clear conscience. The Dance of Dragons is another matter, as Rhaenyra Targaryen was the chosen heir of Viserys I, and Criston Cole, the LC of the KG, entered the field of politics (and betrayal) by crowning Aegon II. But no one could doubt that both pretenders were Targaryens, so the KG divided on the matter. Some followed Rhaenyra, some followed Aegon II. But during the Blackfyre rebellions the KG seems to have stood firmly at the side of Daeron II. At least we don't know yet that Daemon I draw KG members of Daeron into his camp, Daemon II certainly did no such thing.

And I assume that after the Dance of Dragons the subsequent LC of the KG in particular, and the KG in general were put in line concerning their involvement in politics. There was no 'Kingmaker' again.

Addressing also Mad Monkey: I'm not suggesting a "loophole" was inserted into the oath, but rather that the words are necessarily subject to interpretation. In particular, the definition of "king" has often been the subject of violent disagreement.

How do you convey, in a reasonable oath without a bunch of legalese recitations, exactly who is to be the "king" to whom a KG must be loyal? It's a fact that the king will change under half or more KG.

Thanks for the history - it's relevant to this issue. I believe that Robert's claim was through a bastard child of Rhaenyra with a Baratheon man, Robert's grandfather. If she was truly the heir, then her eldest legitimate son would be the next true king; and if Robert's grandfather was somehow legitimated (I don't know all the facts) then he was probably the legitimate king, even though somebody else was in power. But if we agree that you don't lose your claim to the throne just because you're deposed, or are improperly passed over, then Robert may well have been the legitimate king!

People are arguing that Viserys and Dany don't lose their right to the throne just because it was stolen from their family, so they're not currently in power. But by the exact same logic, Rhaenyra's descendants may be the true rulers despite her losing back in the day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

first, i don't think that the oath itself can be very complex to contain instructions for any shady situation that might occur, else it would be very long and probably wouldn't sound very poetic and cool and i can't imagine any knight really learning by heart 10 pages of text and reciting it before the King :D

o, i guess it leaves enough room to allow a Kinsguard to choose what is more honorable/truer to the oath/practical in some situation. (and the White Book could serve as some manual for them to check what their predecestors did in similar situations and behave accordingly, but in case of previously unknown situations, it would be up to them)

also, even if Targs designed it, I don't imagine it to contain any instruction that would literally say "protect Targaryen bloodline", since it would be impractical in case of some Targ vs Targ war, and if they were going to be the only ruling dynasty forever and ever, it would be redundant. so i imagine it more in a "protect whoever sits on the Throne and his family/heirs (or bloodline,whatever)" lines, but does it imply that the Kingsguard should also protect if one has only a claim to the Throne,not the throne itself, if he lost it due to conquest, as what happened to Viserys?

i think that in such case, Kinsguard had a choice to offer their service to the new King on the Throne and his bloodline (if he wanted to accept them) or go to protect ex-royalty, but i can see the first choice to be more practical because

1) if situation was a bit different, let's say Robert didn't hate all Targs (and if they weren't so proud and so on,strethy situation, but bear with me), he would probably allow surviving Targs to swear loyalty and become some lordling House, in which case, KINGSguard protecting Lord Targ would be funny.

2)again, I admit it's not really in Targ mindset, but... okay, surviving Targs escaped with their Kingsguard, but they're kids. no real power. let's say noone wanted to help them get even a chance to regain their Throne. Viserys and Dany could've easily end up some sex slaves in some brothel accross the narow sea, getting a really nice profit for their owner boasting two beautiful slaves of ancient dragonking bloodline. or something like that... Being Kingsguard to such? again, not really great.

or, perhaps simplest, i'd actually describe the Kingsguard as something you get with the Throne :D

so, i'm fine with Selmy serving Robert. I just wonder, if Stannis was in Robert's place, what would've he done about Jaime, as he broke his vows, but in a way provided the Throne...

as to his going to Dany, i'd likely someone to ask Varys where did he go - might be we'd get another riddle as an answer, "put a KG in a room with a King who sits the Throne but doesn't want him, few Kings that have some claim to the Throne and armies to support them, but hell only knows who might win there, and a Queen with the 3 dragons and a strong intention to regain her father's Throne, whom would he serve?"

let's go back now to that first choice he had - Robert or Viserys. what's happening now is the third case scenario of choosing Targs, which didn't seem very damn likely, then. had Joffrey kept him as KG, he would be oathbound to fight to protect him (or his heirs) against Dany if she came to conquer. now that he's free, he can go check her up, and become her QG, regreting he hadn't made that choice the first time he had it.

so, I guess, he's neither a hero nor a turncloak, he's just a guy who's trying to do his duties in a pretty messy times, chosing allegiance as best he can within the boundaries of his oaths?

oh, and i forgot, serving Robert as LC of KG would put him in a situation to try to still in a way protect kid Targs that would've been under his protection if things were different, by voicing his objection to Robert's wish to assassinate Dany. and we saw that happen. so, while he,as a KINGSguard, seves and protects the King, he still cares about ex-royalty, what makes him a pretty decent guy :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the history - it's relevant to this issue. I believe that Robert's claim was through a bastard child of Rhaenyra with a Baratheon man, Robert's grandfather. If she was truly the heir, then her eldest legitimate son would be the next true king; and if Robert's grandfather was somehow legitimated (I don't know all the facts) then he was probably the legitimate king, even though somebody else was in power. But if we agree that you don't lose your claim to the throne just because you're deposed, or are improperly passed over, then Robert may well have been the legitimate king!

Robert's claims came from his grandmother being a daughter to Aegon V. Not Orys Baratheon being a rumoured bastard brother of Aegon I. His claim to the Targaryen and the throne, was obviously weaker then king's own kin to anyone caring about laws custom and tradition, and everyone in Westeros understands that, it just supplied a fig leaf of legitmacy for the new regime. but even had Robert had a strong claim by blood, such a claim would be attainted due to the instrumental part he played in killing the king for anyone that in good faith served Aerys.

If so then the KG were obliged to protect Rhaegar and his offspring - Viserys and Rhaella would be entirely secondary if Rhaegar had in fact become king, however briefly.

The order of which claimant dies is irrelevant for the succession order. Rhaegar's son would inherit the throne before his uncle either way.

There have been times during its history where the Kingsguard has been divided against itself, most notably and bitterly during the Dance of the Dragons (III: 754)." That's when Erryk and Arryk (Darklyn?), brothers and both members of the KG, died on each other's swords. I think there was a similar problem in the Blackfyre Rebellion. So apparently, even in the 300 or so years of the KG, there have been differing decisions and interpretations of how the vows should be honored.

The Dance of Dragons was a special case, Rhaenyra was groomed as her fathers successor according to valyrian custom, but by tradition in Westeros the junior brother inherits before his sister. It could be argued either way by a man in good faith.

As to Selmy, yes as he himself, attest he dishonored himself by swearing fealthy to Robert his weak defence is that so did many others. He clearly was disillusioned by Aerys reign and taken by Robert charisma and generosity. the Targaryen powerbase was nonexistant and he correctly judged Visery unfit to challenge Robert.

So rather then spending the rest of his life in a cell, or go to the block, he yielded to expediency, hoping that the "great knight" Robert would bring stability and justice to the land.

I find him a plausible portrait of a man trying to find a balance of decency without being honorable in absurdum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Addressing also Mad Monkey: I'm not suggesting a "loophole" was inserted into the oath, but rather that the words are necessarily subject to interpretation. In particular, the definition of "king" has often been the subject of violent disagreement.

That makes sense. It seems to be that is someone really wants to rebel, they can find a loophole into anything. You'll notice Robert Baratheon's bizarre reinterpretation of Westerosi inheritance to justify his taking the throne.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is there all this discussion about exact wording of oaths and so on in kingsguard. It's about as clear as it is possible to be in the text about why Selemy choose to serve Robert.

Selemy fought well and bravely to attempt to put down the rebellion but instead of being killed he was injured and captured in battle. When he was brought to Robert the rebellion was over, Robert had won. All the major lords had sworn to Robert and the loyalists had been defeated and the Targaryen blood line reduced to a pregnent Targaryen by marriage and a young boy who were expected to be caught soon. The dragon dynasty was over, destroyed along with all the oaths associated with it. As he had kept his oath and served valliantly Selemy was offered the chance to bend knee and serve the new king (the alternatives were death or the wall). Selemy choose life and service. You can argue all day whether this was an honourable choice or not but trying to insert clauses for regime change into the Kinsguards oath just seems.......... overly elaborate and frankly a bit silly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the KG make their vows to protect the office of "King" or, more generally, "the throne" rather than specific kings or families of kings, then the vows are likely said to, or "before" The Seven. It took the High Septon to release Selmy from his vows after all, so it's certainly likely that his vows were said to a High Septon in the first place. If thats the case then it's likely the KG follow the lead of whoever the High Septon is in recognizing newly anointed kings.

In cases of uncontested hereditary succession, transition the KG's loyalty is a no-brainer. When a king dies his heir is raised from prince to king in a ceremony of blessings or anointings or whatever other varied ritualistic recognitions are required and performed by the Faith for such things. The old KG then know exactly who they are now required to sacrifice their lives for.

For successions by conquest the process would obviously be more complicated, but it all works out (and allows for a consistency in the books) if the KG are ultimately loyal to whoever gets themselves recognized by the head of the Faith. After Aerys is killed, and whatever heirs he may have had are dead or scattered, Robert makes his claim to the throne. After providing whatever requisite gestures of faith are needed before the Seven on the steps of the Great Sept of Baelor, Robert is recognized as King by the High Septon and now occupies the office that the KG are sworn to protect. Thus, Selmy makes the transition from serving Aerys to serving Robert without being a turncloak because the object of his loyalty is not his to determine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After providing whatever requisite gestures of faith are needed before the Seven on the steps of the Great Sept of Baelor, Robert is recognized as King by the High Septon and now occupies the office that the KG are sworn to protect. Thus, Selmy makes the transition from serving Aerys to serving Robert without being a turncloak because the object of his loyalty is not his to determine.

How do you explain that none of Barristan's thoughts and actions on the matter (and to a even greater degree the other members of Aerys Kingsguard) has any semblance to your speculation about how their loyality is tranferred?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert's claims came from his grandmother being a daughter to Aegon V. Not Orys Baratheon being a rumoured bastard brother of Aegon I. His claim to the Targaryen and the throne, was obviously weaker then king's own kin to anyone caring about laws custom and tradition, and everyone in Westeros understands that, it just supplied a fig leaf of legitmacy for the new regime. but even had Robert had a strong claim by blood, such a claim would be attainted due to the instrumental part he played in killing the king for anyone that in good faith served Aerys.

...

The Dance of Dragons was a special case, Rhaenyra was groomed as her fathers successor according to valyrian custom, but by tradition in Westeros the junior brother inherits before his sister. It could be argued either way by a man in good faith.

I confess a weakness in Westerosi history. Is Robert NOT descended from Rhaenyra's (bastard) child with a Baratheon? Is there a good site that lays all this back story out? It's as bad as the tortured history of the English crown.

I'm not at all sure you're correct about a strong claim being attainted, though. If it were so, then Dany's claim would be attainted if she launched a war against whoever is the current "legitimate" ruler of the Seven Kingdoms. Isn't it standard procedure for monarchs to assert their legitimate claims by force of arms? How is what Robert did any different, in view of your arguendo assumption that he has a strong claim by blood?

Special case or not, if Rhaenyra was legitimately the heir, then her claim wouldn't be waived just because she lost the Dance of the Dragons. It's the same logic by which Viserys and Dany retain whatever right to the throne they were originally entitled to, despite Robert's successful Rebellion. Other facts being suitable, Robert's Rebellion could be seen as an encore of Dance of the Dragons, except this time Rhaenyra's side won. (Other facts are suitable if Robert's grandfather was Rhaenyra's bastard and was heir as of right, which probably requires that he was somehow legitimized).

Is Rhaenyra Aegon V's daughter, and is she Robert's grandmother?

As to Selmy, yes as he himself, attest he dishonored himself by swearing fealthy to Robert his weak defence is that so did many others. He clearly was disillusioned by Aerys reign and taken by Robert charisma and generosity. the Targaryen powerbase was nonexistant and he correctly judged Visery unfit to challenge Robert.

So rather then spending the rest of his life in a cell, or go to the block, he yielded to expediency, hoping that the "great knight" Robert would bring stability and justice to the land.

I find him a plausible portrait of a man trying to find a balance of decency without being honorable in absurdum.

I agree, with a caveat: Selmy isn't necessarily as culpable as he thinks he is. Honorable individuals generally err on the side of taking too much responsibility for their actions, and consider it a failing to avail themselves of excuses. Others have to do it for them. Certainly he did the reasonable thing; but my argument is that the facts are such that he may not have been a turncoat at all, despite the weak defense he offered.

Thanks for the tip on succession following through eldest son, Rhaegar, regardless of date of survival - sounds right, and I probably should have known. And of course that explains the three KG at TOJ; their presence tends to support the suspicion that the child was legitimate. But I don't haunt the R+L threads, so this is doubtless an ancient idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I confess a weakness in Westerosi history. Is Robert NOT descended from Rhaenyra's (bastard) child with a Baratheon? Is there a good site that lays all this back story out? It's as bad as the tortured history of the English crown.

You're conflating a few things.

House Baratheon's "modern" version, in the post Targaryen conquest era, starts when Orys Baratheon married the daughter of the conquered Storm King. Orys was one of Aegon I's generals and it was speculated that he was his bastard brother. He appears to have been Valyrian, but dressed himself up in the words and colors and such of his new bride's house.

However, the grandmother of Robert, Stannis and Renly was a Targaryen princess. Robert's father was Steffon. Steffon's mother was Princess Rhaelle Targaryen, one of the daughters of Aegon V, "Egg."

So, yes, Robert had a smidge of dragon's blood, but one wonders if the upper nobility doesn't all have some by now?

For what it's worth, the history of English crown is actually rather straightforward. It follows straight-thinking rules.... except when the throne switches over via force with the big mish-mash of the War of the Roses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is Robert NOT descended from Rhaenyra's (bastard) child with a Baratheon? Is there a good site that lays all this back story out?

I never heard about that. You could try

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Baratheon

Special case or not, if Rhaenyra was legitimately the heir, then her claim wouldn't be waived just because she lost the Dance of the Dragons. It's the same logic by which Viserys and Dany retain whatever right to the throne they were originally entitled to, despite Robert's successful Rebellion. Other facts being suitable, Robert's Rebellion could be seen as an encore of Dance of the Dragons, except this time Rhaenyra's side won.

No, as I tried to explain, Rhaenery was Viserys I the firstborn and groomed by him as his successor, supposedly in Valyrian fashion. He got a son after that though and in most of Westeros the succession laws is by male preference primogeniture. For someone concerned about actual legitimacy it can be argued both ways. Of course most people will go with the interpretation that best serves their personal interest. People like Ned, Stannis Davos etc are rare. Rhaenyra’s claim wasn’t waived her son became king after her brother.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Targaryen#Rhaenyra

And I fail to see any similarities with Robert’s rebellion and the Dance of dragons.

I'm not at all sure you're correct about a strong claim being attainted, though. If it were so, then Dany's claim would be attainted if she launched a war against whoever is the current "legitimate" ruler of the Seven Kingdoms. Isn't it standard procedure for monarchs to assert their legitimate claims by force of arms?

Oh I’m sure all claimants attaint each other liberally. I was speaking about someone who actually cared about law and honor, no matter who has the power to assert themselves or not.

How is what Robert did any different, in view of your arguendo assumption that he has a strong claim by blood?

I tried to say that even IF Robert had a strong blood claim (it’s obviously is inferior to the member of the royal family) he committed treason and is complicit to murder of the king he wants to inherit from.

I cannot see a faithful honorable servant of Aerys finding such a man’s claim lawful and just.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Special case or not, if Rhaenyra was legitimately the heir, then her claim wouldn't be waived just because she lost the Dance of the Dragons. It's the same logic by which Viserys and Dany retain whatever right to the throne they were originally entitled to, despite Robert's successful Rebellion. Other facts being suitable, Robert's Rebellion could be seen as an encore of Dance of the Dragons, except this time Rhaenyra's side won. (Other facts are suitable if Robert's grandfather was Rhaenyra's bastard and was heir as of right, which probably requires that he was somehow legitimized).

Rhaenyra was Viserys' heiress-presumptive, via King Viserys I's Arryn Queen. Under a system we see in a theoretical form in Westeros, a daughter is *always* a presumptive heir because even if she had no brothers, her father could always remarry (if the first wife dies or is divorced) and that second wife could have a son, which by default would become 'heir-apparent.' That is pretty much the strict way that agnatic has been practiced in Britain, and its theoretical form was flirted with in Westeros. Problem is, when the family is so intertwined as the Targaryens are - how the hell do you know who is an agnate or a cognate?

In the case of Viserys I and his heir, Rhaenrya, he had no surviving sons and he reared Princess Rhaenyra to be succeed him. She in turn, having come to maturity with the presumption of the throne had a clique of courtiers and allies who were invested in seeing that happen. Including whatever House Rhaenyra's husband was from.

Her mother died, and Viserys remarried. The second wife had a slew of offspring, including Aegon II. Viserys died thinking that he had specifically settled the succession upon Rhaenyra by decree - in the absence of the formal decree - it would default to her (younger) brother(s). However, something went awry and the Lord Commander of the Kingsguard decided to declare for Aegon, and so did a sizable portion of the nobility, presumably from the Reach, as Aegon's mother was a Hightower and therefore a vassal of Highgarden.

In the strictest sense, it would seen that Aegon was a usurper and opportunist, but was still the offspring of a sitting monarch... Robert Baratheon, not so much.

But as is the way of such things, they patched it up and put both warring halves of the family in one bed when Rhaenyra's son married Aegon's daughter, and their children took over the succession.

That is a partial merge of Queen Maude's son Henry FitzEmpress succeeding his mother (who never actual ruled, because the throne was occupied by a "pretender") and also the lovely reconciliation at the end of the War of the Roses as Henry Tudor (Henry VII) having pushed a Plantagenet off the throne (Richard III) made it all better for himself by marrying Elizabeth of York, the eldest daughter of Rhichard's dead brother King Edward.

edit: clarity, spelling, wikilinks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you explain that none of Barristan's thoughts and actions on the matter (and to a even greater degree the other members of Aerys Kingsguard) has any semblance to your speculation about how their loyality is tranferred?

 

I really don't knwo the books chapter and verse, so I'm not sure what it is you're thinking of that contradicts my suggestion so completely.  But just generally I will say that after a violent rebellion there is plenty of time for animosity and confusion over conflciting loyalties before a new king is crowned.

If you could be more specific with your objections I will try to answer them more precisley. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...