Why Robert's Rebellion?

[King of Vaes Tolorro]

As Bright Blue Eyes said Robert was never the leader but became the rebels' candidate for the throne. He had the image of a good poster-boy, was charismatic and a strong warrior of young age with proven fertility and of a noble and venerable House with a distant link to the Targaryens. Thus he had everything going to be the best guy for the job the rebels could put forward.

Robert was more than their figure head. he was their leader. He was the one who killed the Crown Prince, he was the one who led the armies. He was the best general among them.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

Robert was more than their figure head. he was their leader. He was the one who killed the Crown Prince, he was the one who led the armies. He was the best general among them.

Robert himself and Cat as close relative of all three other Lord Paramounts disagree.

[complexphoenix]

Ned explicitly states in AGOT that Robert has chosen because of his claim. From Eddard VII (page 309 in my copy):

Robert sat down again. "Damn you, Ned Stark. You and Jon Arryn, I loved you both. What have you done to me? You were the one should have been king, you or Jon."

"You had the better claim, Your Grace."

From that, I conclude that it was the primary factor. Whether Robert was declared King before he went to Storm's End, or after the three allies met back up after the Battle of the Bells, is unknown.

[A spoon of knife and fork]

Ned explicitly states in AGOT that Robert has chosen because of his claim. From Eddard VII (page 309 in my copy):

From that, I conclude that it was the primary factor. Whether Robert was declared King before he went to Storm's End, or after the three allies met back up after the Battle of the Bells, is unknown.

I agree with this interpretation.

It's interesting to note that he does say "you had the Better claim" instead of "only you had a claim" which makes me wonder what kind of claim Ned or Jon could have had

[Raving Stark the Mad]

I agree with this interpretation.

It's interesting to note that he does say "you had the Better claim" instead of "only you had a claim" which makes me wonder what kind of claim Ned or Jon could have had

I think it was Ned and Jon's excuse.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

Ned explicitly states in AGOT that Robert has chosen because of his claim. From Eddard VII (page 309 in my copy):

From that, I conclude that it was the primary factor. Whether Robert was declared King before he went to Storm's End, or after the three allies met back up after the Battle of the Bells, is unknown.

"I don't want the job, nor did Jon Arryn. Take it and the excuse we made up."

[complexphoenix]

"I don't want the job, nor did Jon Arryn. Take it and the excuse we made up."

Uhhh, the fact that Robert's grandmother was a Targaryen princess was not made up. Neither was the idea that collateral relatives should succeed when the main line perishes something invented in 283 AC. If Aerys and Rhaella and their descendants were killed or removed, Robert would, in fact, be next in line after them, since Jaehaerys and Rhaelle were the only children of Aegon V with trueborn descendants still extant.

For Robert to depose his cousins and take their throne wasn't exactly legal, but it was.... legal-er? more legal? less illegal? than Ned or Jon Arryn doing so, neither of whom had Targaryen ancestry that we are aware of.

Maintaining the principle of bloodline inheritance matters a lot to Westerosi lords, since nearly all of them base their claims to legitimate rulership of their lands, castles, and people on inheritance from their ancestors. Undermine the principle too much, and you undermine the whole feudal system.

[Knight Of Winter]

Maintaining the principle of bloodline inheritance matters a lot to Westerosi lords, since nearly all of them base their claims to legitimate rulership of their lands, castles, and people on inheritance from their ancestors. Undermine the principle too much, and you undermine the whole feudal system.

What do you think would have happened if rebels decided they want Ned as king instead? Would system collapse, or would Targ loyalist instantly rebel? The principle is important just as much as people in power (e.g. lords) decide that's important, and they can decide to completely ignore it if it suits them.

[mankytoes]

Someone in other topic said that Robert's Rebellion got this name in retrospect, and that it would have gotten another one according with who' taken de Throne. I always thought it was his rebellion since the beginning because Lyanna was his bethroned, thus making him the one to rescue her and her honor. But I also aways thought that a Stark Rebelllion would make more sense, because, you know, it was the House that lost most of his members to the Targs. With also justifies Ned not wanting to be king, besides his own lack of interest: Winterfell was really needing Starks there.

Yeah that was me, just because the actual rebellion was started by Jon Arryn, he declared war when Aerys demanded the heads of Ned and Robert. Also, he was an established figure, while Robert and Ned were green teenagers.

Robert starting the rebellion to save Lyanna is stated in the show, but doesn't appear to be the case in the books; it's Brandon who marches to Kings Landing to face Rhaegar/save Lyanna. I don't think we know of Robert actually doing anything until Jon declares war.

Nonetheless, the term Robert's Rebellion still seems fitting when you consider the events of the war we know about. Robert won the Vale by killing Grafton to get Gulltown, then showed great military prowess and charisma to secure his Stormlands, then of course killing Rhaegar. Not sure John or Ned did much outstanding to compare- as stated, Robert helped Jon get the Vale, while rallying the North was hardly the biggest challenge for Ned when half the liege Lords had been killed by Aerys with Rickard and Brandon.

[A spoon of knife and fork]

What do you think would have happened if rebels decided they want Ned as king instead? Would system collapse, or would Targ loyalist instantly rebel? The principle is important just as much as people in power (e.g. lords) decide that's important, and they can decide to completely ignore it if it suits them.

The point is that they are extremely unlikely to do that because the in concept of a right to rule being attached to bloodlines is almost universal in Westeros and is in fact universal among lords in Westeros.

To toss out Robert and pick someone with no claim and all would put their own right to pass their titles to their Heirs at risk.

[complexphoenix]

The point is that they are extremely unlikely to do that because the in concept of a right to rule being attached to bloodlines is almost universal in Westeros and is in fact universal among lords in Westeros.

To toss out Robert and pick someone with no claim and all would put their own right to pass their titles to their Heirs at risk.

Exactly. If you undercut the legal principles that give the system its legitimacy, you destabilize the system, and put everyone who relies on the system at risk. You can't rely on brute force alone to keep your family in power forever. To get you through the inevitable rough patches, weak lords and child lords, you need legitimacy. So the lords cannot just ignore the rules whenever they feel like it, although they can get away with it sometimes.