Why did Robert pardon Gregor

[Laughing Storm Reborn]

The thing is, there was no proof that it was gregor and lorch, and without proof you are punishing the entire lannister house just to please the Martell´s who sent 10,000 men to kill you...

Until gregor´s confession there was just rumours, it´s easy to talk when you don´t have to think about a war with the lannister´s that would kill even MORE WOMEN AND CHILDREN...

Ned was the one who didn´t agree, Jon Arryn didn´t say anything, he even was the one that arranged the lannister-baratheon union, and Robert wasn´t crowned yet, so jon could very well take matters himself, or does anyone think Robert would hammer Jon´s head for taking action?

If people think otherwise fine, one thing is certain? Everytime George talks about Robert is in a positive way, about a good man with flaws like anyone here, if you think Robert was a bad person or evil minded then there´s probably 8 or 9 good people in asoiaf and half of them has plenty of years in their lives to screw it up big time... let´s see in the end

[BalerionTheCat]

The thing is, there was no proof that it was gregor and lorch, and without proof you are punishing the entire lannister house just to please the Martell´s who sent 10,000 men to kill you...

Until gregor´s confession there was just rumours, it´s easy to talk when you don´t have to think about a war with the lannister´s that would kill even MORE WOMEN AND CHILDREN...

Ned was the one who didn´t agree, Jon Arryn didn´t say anything, he even was the one that arranged the lannister-baratheon union, and Robert wasn´t crowned yet, so jon could very well take matters himself, or does anyone think Robert would hammer Jon´s head for taking action?

If people think otherwise fine, one thing is certain? Everytime George talks about Robert is in a positive way, about a good man with flaws like anyone here, if you think Robert was a bad person or evil minded then there´s probably 8 or 9 good people in asoiaf and half of them has plenty of years in their lives to screw it up big time... let´s see in the end

Not even Tywin denies what Gregor did. And anyway, it was Lannister men and Tywin should have acted first, Robert later if not. And if suspicion remained, there should have been an investigation or a trial. Even as fake as trials are in Westeros. Robert was not a bad man. Robert was rather a friendly pal, but not fit to rule.

[The Once and Future King]

I've never understood why he did this, I mean he kind of had to pardon Tywin but not Gregor Clegane. By doing that he's practically spitting on the Martells seeing as Lewyn, Elia, Rhaenys and Aegon all died because of Robert and his cause and when that isn't bad enough he pardons the man who smashed a baby's head against a wall then raped the mother with the blood and brains of her child on his hands and smashes her face in (going from what the mountain said). Also gregor wasn't thought of as the really scary battle commander that he's known as now, I'm assuming since he was 17 and Tywin admitted that he wasn't fully aware of how brutal he was (although I think he knew full well). And shouldn't the same go for armoy lorach (sorry for spelling) killing any 3 year old like that should have had consequences.

Edit- sorry I should have been clearer what I meant was morally shouldn't he realized that was wrong, like ned did, and arrest Gregor, like ned did, not why did the children need to die

In Eddards first meeting with Gregor, The Ned states that there wad talt that the big G was the one who raped and murdered the princess. He also said no one ever confronted him about it

[The Once and Future King]

With Robert's legendary hatred of everything Targaryen, it's good he didn't promote Gregor into a lord.

Gregor is a lord

[OldGimletEye]

So do you then favor the former interpretation that they should have been punished, as it is against custom/common law to murder innocent children and Noncombatants in such a way?

Btw I don't really think that Danys position in the lagzareen villaiher is like Roberts. Indeed, Drogo is in Roberts position and his acceptance of the acts is as despicable as roberts, since both are in a position to punish, but don't. Dany's position is more similar to Jon Arryns - horrified person without power to stop the atrocity who attempts to accept it as "necessary" and try to clean up the mess somehow...

The bottom line is that neither Aerys or Robert get to define what is ethical and get to completely and arbitrarily define the law as it pleases them. What happened to Elia and her children was murder. It's as simple as that. I'm of the personal opinion that Tywin's decision to have Elia and her children murdered did nothing more than to create a huge ethical and political mess for Robert. If Robert had a little more foresight, it seems to me that he should have known that any death or harm to Elia and her kids would have alienated Dorne from his rule and would have likely created a huge and unrepairable rift between him and Dorne. Accordingly, his best policy option should have been to take Elia and her kids into some sort of protective custody.

Robert's private reaction to the murder of Elia and her children was certainly awful and atrocious. And it's true that as King he has a general obligation to make sure that justice is done. That's a big part of a monarch's job description. On the other hand, I, think, it would be unrealistic to conclude that the chief law enforcer ought not to have some discretion in deciding what cases to prosecute. The fact of the matter is that political leaders do, at times, have legitimate political reasons for declining prosecutions. An ASOIAF example of this would be when Dany gives a general amnesty after the sack of Mereen. In Robert's case, I think his failure to prosecute the murders of Elia and her children is only defensible if there would have been high political and military cost in pursuing justice against Tywin, Gregor, and Lorch. If the cost would not have been particularly high, then his decision to not prosecute Tywin, Gregor, and Lorch is not defensible.

I would add that I think its a bit disingenuous for the "Only The Targs Are Entitled To Rule Westeros" crowd to act shocked because some people in Westeros might think that the presence of Targaryen children might present a threat to the stability of Westeros. If there were substantial questions around Robert's legitimacy as monarch because he wasn't a true blue Targaryen, then I don't know how in the hell somebody pretends to be shocked over the fact that some people might have seen living Targaryens as a major security threats. Personally, I don't buy into Targaryen propagandist crap and think Robert did have legitimacy as monarch. Besides the support of his own ancestral lands, Robert had the consent of the 1) The North, 2) The Vale, 3) The Riverlands, and 4) The Westerlands. If that consent didn't confer some sort of legitimacy upon Robert's monarchy, then I don't know what in the hell does, particularly after Aerys repeatedly violated the social norms of Westeros.

Also, I know some people feel that Robert's actions with regard to Elia and her children gave Dany a perfect justification to bring war against Robert. I'm not buying that. For one, Dany was not in the same situation as Jon Arryn. She was not faced with the choice of committing two illegal murders or making a rebellion. Secondly, as bad as Robert was as king, he did not like Aerys' commit repeated overreaches of power. Thirdly, Robert was nowhere as near as brutal as Aerys. Finally, you have to wonder about the equity of letting some one declare war fourteen years after the event which allegedly justifies their declaration of war. Fourthly, if all Dany meant to do was to punish Robert and the "Usuper Dogs", while affirming the validity of her own father's actions, then I am not seeing a net gain in justice or equity. Hence, I am a bit down on the Khaleesi counter revolution.

Finally, before Robert Baratheon becomes the Khaleesi National Party's Emmanuel Goldstein, for its two minutes of hate sessions, I think we ought to do a little comparison. Like for instance:

Ned did not feign surprise; Robert's hatred of the Targaryens was a madness in him. He remembered the angry words they had exchanged when Tywin Lannister had presented Robert with the corpses of Rhaegar's wife and children as a token of fealty. Ned had named that murder; Robert called it war. When he had protested that the young prince and princess were no more than babes, his new-made king had replied, "I see no babes. Only dragonspawn." Not even Jon Arryn had been able to calm that storm. Eddard Stark had ridden out that very day in a cold rage, to fight the last battles of the war alone in the south. It had taken another death to reconcile them; Lyanna's death, and the grief they had shared over her passing.

Ogo and his son had shared the high bench with her lord husband at the naming feast where Viserys had been crowned, but that was in Vaes Dothrak, beneath the Mother of Mountains, where every rider was a brother and all quarrels were put aside. It was different out in the grass. Ogo's khalasar had been attacking the town when Khal Drogo caught him. She wondered what the Lamb Men had thought, when they first saw the dust of their horses from atop those cracked-mud walls. Perhaps a few, the younger and more foolish who still believed that the gods heard the prayers of desperate men, took it for deliverance.

Across the road, a girl no older than Dany was sobbing in a high thin voice as a rider shoved her over a pile of corpses, facedown, and thrust himself inside her. Other riders dismounted to take their turns. That was the sort of deliverance the Dothraki brought the Lamb Men.

I am the blood of the dragon, Daenerys Targaryen reminded herself as she turned her face away. She pressed her lips together and hardened her heart and rode on toward the gate.

"Most of Ogo's riders fled," Ser Jorah was saying. "Still, there may be as many as ten thousand captives."

Slaves, Dany thought. Khal Drogo would drive them downriver to one of the towns on Slaver's Bay. She wanted to cry, but she told herself that she must be strong. This is war, this is what it looks like, this is the price of the Iron Throne.

You've implied that some kind of Targaryen fan a couple times now- I'm not. For what it is worth, I'm arguing that murdering Targ children is not a crime.

My point is very simple- no need to get into discussions of the justifications for Robert's Rebellion or whatever. Here it is:

Nobody with the power to punish crimes thought that the killing of Elia, Rhaenys, and Aegon was a crime. Hence, no pardon was necessary.

I did not mean to imply that you were a Targ fan. If you took it that way, then I apologize. That's not what I was trying to say. I hope you understand what I was getting at.

ETA:

And even if we assume that Dany had some right to punish Robert for his lapses, I do not think that means she had the right to demand the submission of the North or the Vale. I think the leaders there are well within their rights to tell Dany that they and House Targaryen are done.

[Aerys Blackfyre]

there was nothing to pardon, he did what he did and Robert was glad enough someone else did that instead of him

[Laughing Storm Reborn]

Not even Tywin denies what Gregor did. And anyway, it was Lannister men and Tywin should have acted first, Robert later if not. And if suspicion remained, there should have been an investigation or a trial. Even as fake as trials are in Westeros. Robert was not a bad man. Robert was rather a friendly pal, but not fit to rule.

We agree that he wasn´t ruler material, and his life would have been a lot happier had Jon or Ned taken the IT... but being in that situation is never easy, george tells us all the time rulers have to take tough decisions, thinking if said action (risking lannister blame) would lead to more death and despair...

Punishing those two is the right moral thing to do (after an investigation takes place)... but there´s always lives in the balance for both decisions, punish them and you did the good moral deed, or risk the lives of more women, men and children in a war with tywin... it´s never easy, and they convinced the wrong guy to put himself in that position, Jon Arryn and Ned Stark should have taken the throne if they were ready to be the judge

Funny thing is, if Ned took the throne, a war with the westerlands would be a reality and the realm would suffer greatly and Ned would end up being betrayed in his sleep and thousands more smallfolk would be dead...

And i´m the first to say Ned Stark is a great, good hearted person... nontheless he would cause thousands of deaths punishing the Lannisters...

It´s never easy...

[Lost Melnibonean]

In Eddards first meeting with Gregor, The Ned states that there wad talt that the big G was the one who raped and murdered the princess. He also said no one ever confronted him about it

Not exactly...

I don't think Robert knew that it was Gregor. Ned had heard rumors...

Some said it had been Gregor who'd dashed the skull of the infant prince Aegon Targaryen against a wall, and whispered that afterward he had raped the mother, the Dornish princess Elia, before putting her to the sword.

Eddard VII, Game

...but I'd suspect that Robert just looked the other way.

I think the question in the OP assumes something that never happened.

[Lost Melnibonean]

Gregor is a lord

No he is not. He's a landed knight.

[The Once and Future King]

Not exactly...

I don't think Robert knew that it was Gregor. Ned had heard rumors...

Eddard VII, Game

...but I'd suspect that Robert just looked the other way.

I think the question in the OP assumes something that never happened.

Read the next line in the book. what does Eddard say next?

[Balerion the kitten]

Punishing those two is the right moral thing to do (after an investigation takes place)... but there´s always lives in the balance for both decisions, punish them and you did the good moral deed, or risk the lives of more women, men and children in a war with tywin... it´s never easy, and they convinced the wrong guy to put himself in that position, Jon Arryn and Ned Stark should have taken the throne if they were ready to be the judge

So he had to make a political decision rather than follow the law so he didn't upset the west. If you remember why ned told cersei he found about her and jaime was so that she could escape westeros. Why because Robert would have killed her, jaime and their children. I think.

Wouldn't that have upset the westerlands, meaning tywin, and caused a war.

[EastTymor]

Robert says what is legit or not. But if he pisses too many, and displease too many, some will rebel and others will not come to his help. In Gregor's case many were shocked by what he did. Little and less damage would have been done to his kingship, even in the Westlands, if Robert had punished Gregor.

After the Sack, Robert is backed by the North, Vale, Riverlands, Westerlands, Stormlands, and sort of the Iron Isles. As we see, the Reach is relatively easy to bring on board, and the Crownlands and Narrow Sea islands are too weak to do anything. That leaves Dorne, which we now know will not be satisfied with just Gregor and Amory- they want Tywin as well.

Robert would have alienated his most powerful supporter, who had just convincingly demonstrated his loyalty, in order to not-appease the Dornish.

If Robert prosecutes Gregor and Amory, he risks breaking his coalition. Tywin won't rest easy- he gave the order not only for the murders, but also for the Sack. Hoster won't easy- he came down hard on a number of Riverlanders who supported Aerys. Its doubtful that any of the combatants (even the North) had a perfect human rights record during the rebellion (also, the concept didn't really exist). If Robert starts punishing his allies for what they did to put him on the throne, he won't be king for long

Roughly speaking, if the heir to the dynasty that you are trying to overthrow is not a legitimate target in a civil war, then who is?

[Lost Melnibonean]

Read the next line in the book. what does Eddard say next?

... These things were not said in Gregor's hearing.

Ned Stark could not recall ever speaking to the man, though Gregor had ridden with them during Balon Greyjoy's rebellion, one knight among thousands. He watched him with disquiet. Ned seldom put much stock in gossip, but the things said of Ser Gregor were more than ominous. He was soon to be married for the third time, and one heard dark whisperings about the deaths of his first two wives. It was said that his keep was a grim place where servants disappeared unaccountably and even the dogs were afraid to enter the hall. And there had been a sister who had died young under queer circumstances, and the fire that had disfigured his brother, and the hunting accident that had killed their father. Gregor had inherited the keep, the gold, and the family estates. His younger brother Sandor had left the same day to take service with the Lannisters as a sworn sword, and it was said that he had never returned, not even to visit.

When the Knight of Flowers made his entrance, ...

Absolutely nothing attributing any knowledge by Robert of Gregor's deed or any pardon of Ser Gregor...

ETA But your statement, the one I quoted was correct. :) I was challenging the Op's assumption.

[The Once and Future King]

Absolutely nothing attributing any knowledge by Robert of Gregor's deed or any pardon of Ser Gregor...

ETA But your statement, the one I quoted was correct. :) I was challenging the Op's assumption.

I love how we are vigorously arguing on the same side

[BRANDON GREYSTARK]

He didn't know who did the deed ,because when Robert reached King's Landing they were wrapped up in a Lannister colored cloak. Or two words Jon Arryn .

[BalerionTheCat]

After the Sack, Robert is backed by the North, Vale, Riverlands, Westerlands, Stormlands, and sort of the Iron Isles. As we see, the Reach is relatively easy to bring on board, and the Crownlands and Narrow Sea islands are too weak to do anything. That leaves Dorne, which we now know will not be satisfied with just Gregor and Amory- they want Tywin as well.

Robert would have alienated his most powerful supporter, who had just convincingly demonstrated his loyalty, in order to not-appease the Dornish.

If Robert prosecutes Gregor and Amory, he risks breaking his coalition. Tywin won't rest easy- he gave the order not only for the murders, but also for the Sack. Hoster won't easy- he came down hard on a number of Riverlanders who supported Aerys. Its doubtful that any of the combatants (even the North) had a perfect human rights record during the rebellion (also, the concept didn't really exist). If Robert starts punishing his allies for what they did to put him on the throne, he won't be king for long

Roughly speaking, if the heir to the dynasty that you are trying to overthrow is not a legitimate target in a civil war, then who is?

Gregor was a beast. Beheading him would not have caused a war with Tywin. Tywin would not risk much for his beast. Have a trial if necessary. In fact, I don't understand why Tywin did not do it himself. Letting Gregor live was sanctioning him. Sooner or later it would have been a problem with Dorne. Gregor dead, Sandor would have taken his titles and even Tywin would have been better with him. Going against the house Lannister would have been a bloodbath however, unless Robert could convene some sort of Grand Council.

[Batbob45]

Gregor was a beast. Beheading him would not have caused a war with Tywin. Tywin would not risk much for his beast. Have a trial if necessary. In fact, I don't understand why Tywin did not do it himself. Letting Gregor live was sanctioning him. Sooner or later it would have been a problem with Dorne. Gregor dead, Sandor would have taken his titles and even Tywin would have been better with him. Going against the house Lannister would have been a bloodbath however, unless Robert could convene some sort of Grand Council.

Gregor was Tywin's large powerful fear nuke. The Mountain made majority of knights scared. Tywin keep the Mountain around because he was strong and could be use to intimidate other lords.

[EastTymor]

Gregor was a beast. Beheading him would not have caused a war with Tywin. Tywin would not risk much for his beast. Have a trial if necessary. In fact, I don't understand why Tywin did not do it himself. Letting Gregor live was sanctioning him. Sooner or later it would have been a problem with Dorne. Gregor dead, Sandor would have taken his titles and even Tywin would have been better with him. Going against the house Lannister would have been a bloodbath however, unless Robert could convene some sort of Grand Council.

OK lets say you can successfully convince Tywin to give up Gregor and risk being implicating himself. Further, lets assume that Gregor forfeits his right to trial by combat, admits guilt, claims the murders were his idea, and is executed with no further issues. Are the Dornish and other Targ loyalists placated and willing to throw their support behind Robert?

I doubt it.

[Laughing Storm Reborn]

So he had to make a political decision rather than follow the law so he didn't upset the west. If you remember why ned told cersei he found about her and jaime was so that she could escape westeros. Why because Robert would have killed her, jaime and their children. I think.

Wouldn't that have upset the westerlands, meaning tywin, and caused a war.

That happened when Robert´s rule was cemented, after years of peace, a very different situation from the time the children were presented to him... Tywin wouldn´t have ANY chance in AGOT, at the time of the sacking he could hurt Robert badly (Robert´s army wasn´t that bigger then Tywin´s)... And Cersei´s betrayal was to Robert himself, while Elia and the children wasn´t Robert´s concern or fault, period...

You can´t blame Robert in any way relating to the sack...

Gregor and Lorch killed them, those are the people you should direct your hate, not Robert

If you think Robert would kill the children (Cersei´s or Elia´s) i´m not going to change your mind, he could or he couldn´t (like Davos or Jon Snow could), it just never happened...

[Jon's Queen Consort]

Yes but the paternity of her kids isn't something she lies about in her POV's.

So the fact that she killed Melara, that Joffrey was torturing animals and she said that it was just a mischief means nothing about her reliability?

Renly's words -
Lord Renly shrugged. "The matter seems simple enough to me. We ought to have had Viserys and his sister killed years ago, but His Grace my brother made the mistake of listening to Jon Arryn."- GOT 33

When Robert wanted to do something, Jon couldn't stop him. If he wanted to have them killed, they would have been dead.

This^. No matter what JA said if Robert wanted to kill then then they would be dead.

It probably would be a good idea for you to back off from this discussion for awhile.

Consider again what you wrote. If someone is an alcoholic or other addict that makes them no less responsible for their actions. Legally and morally. It's also not a racial issue. It is their responsibility to get clean and turn their life around. This is a pretty touchy issue for me as I have alcoholic family members and they are incredibly damaging to those around them and to innocent bystanders. With robert, he is king, so you can apply that to the entire kigdom.

I'm not interested in whether robert is a good person. Robert is a person who has done bad and good things. Probably his worst action was failing to punish someone for Elias death. I don't think this should be controversial.

It is awful to claim that because someone is an alcoholic or a sex addict or and in Robert's case dysthymic is a bad person. I don't care if someone tries to make an excuse about it, claiming that someone is a bad person because of mental illness is racist and vile and heinous.

I don't care about what he hadn't done in Elia's case. He hadn't killed her or hadn't order their death and that is enough for me. He had no obligation to investigate what happened since it happened before he take the Throne and to the people from his enemy's side. The people to blame are Rhaegar, Aerys, Tywin and Gregon. The end.