Consigliere Posted August 15, 2015 Share Posted August 15, 2015 Yes, that's the one! Thanks. Where did you find it? This thread: http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/95894-aenys-is-wife-a-stark/page-12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Varys Posted August 15, 2015 Share Posted August 15, 2015 Didn't seem to contain new information, though. Robert only proclaiming himself after the Trident raises the question as to why Ned went along with that. Surely the conservative Stark view on kingship would have been that the throne would pass to Aerys and Rhaegar's immediate heirs after their deaths rather than to Robert. If the question had been left open until after the Trident I really wonder why Robert didn't face any opposition. If Robert hadn't made his claim known before the Trident for what did the rebel movement actually fight for? Robert/Ned had personal motivations to fight against Aerys II (to save their heads) but Jon Arryn, Hoster Tully, and all their allies and vassals would have had other, more pragmatic reasons. I cannot imagine Hoster teaming up with the rebels if he did not also expect to overthrow the Targaryen regime in its entirety - and that would have meant installing Robert as king. Deposing/killing Aerys or Rhaegar in favor of Aegon or Viserys wouldn't have put the rebels in a good position once the new king reached his majority (Aegon may have worked better since the child wouldn't have remembered his father or grandfather whereas Viserys would clearly have understood and known what happened around him - and may thus have hold a grudge against the rebels). Aegon III seems to have overcome such feelings - but then, the Dance was a Targaryen civil whereas the Rebellion clearly was a war fought against House Targaryen (despite the fact that Robert was the closest cousin of the royal family). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhaenys_Targaryen Posted August 15, 2015 Share Posted August 15, 2015 This post perhaps. :D Thank you!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mithras Posted August 15, 2015 Share Posted August 15, 2015 Didn't seem to contain new information, though. Robert only proclaiming himself after the Trident raises the question as to why Ned went along with that. Surely the conservative Stark view on kingship would have been that the throne would pass to Aerys and Rhaegar's immediate heirs after their deaths rather than to Robert. If the question had been left open until after the Trident I really wonder why Robert didn't face any opposition. If Robert hadn't made his claim known before the Trident for what did the rebel movement actually fight for? Robert/Ned had personal motivations to fight against Aerys II (to save their heads) but Jon Arryn, Hoster Tully, and all their allies and vassals would have had other, more pragmatic reasons. I cannot imagine Hoster teaming up with the rebels if he did not also expect to overthrow the Targaryen regime in its entirety - and that would have meant installing Robert as king. Deposing/killing Aerys or Rhaegar in favor of Aegon or Viserys wouldn't have put the rebels in a good position once the new king reached his majority (Aegon may have worked better since the child wouldn't have remembered his father or grandfather whereas Viserys would clearly have understood and known what happened around him - and may thus have hold a grudge against the rebels). Aegon III seems to have overcome such feelings - but then, the Dance was a Targaryen civil whereas the Rebellion clearly was a war fought against House Targaryen (despite the fact that Robert was the closest cousin of the royal family). None of those questions you raised matter. Yronwoods rode with Bittersteel three times yet here they are. Peakes killed a king yet they still stand. Lyonel Baratheon declared independence yet House Baratheon was not extinguished. Even as Gulltown fell, Robert was fighting like a king (according to Lord Borrell). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Varys Posted August 15, 2015 Share Posted August 15, 2015 The question is: Why do I, a rebel sympathizer, if I don't know what their ultimate goal is? Or if they have told me that their goal isn't to seat Robert on the Iron Throne, why I back him after the Trident if that wasn't my goal in the first place. Sure, could have been that there was a Robb-like situation, but I don't see Ned backing Robert in that if they actually discussed claims since Viserys and Aegon had better claims. Or, vice versa, why would Robert not make it known that he had a claim and would take the throne shortly before the Trident to bind his followers even stronger to him. Who do you want to follow - some guy who doesn't have the guts to say that he wants the throne (he has a legal claim from his grandmother which is known to everyone) or a warrior-king who flat out says what he wants? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mithras Posted August 15, 2015 Share Posted August 15, 2015 The answer is: Why the hell not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Varys Posted August 15, 2015 Share Posted August 15, 2015 Well, because you might fear that if Robert and the rebels don't have the guts to end the Targaryen reign the son or grandson of Aerys II may remember that you had helped murder Aerys or Rhaegar? If some poor rebel lord had had 'the honor' of murdering Rhaegar and if the rebels had decided to hand the crown to Viserys III, then this guy and Tywin/Jaime may have been fried - perhaps not at once, but eventually. Surely Jaime wouldn't have been allowed to remain in the Kingsguard of Viserys III. If you fight for somebody and are willing to spill (royal) blood in his service then you usually want to know what you are in for. If you are not, you suffer the fate of poor Trystane Truefyre who was crowned King Trystane I by Ser Perkin the Flea who then later made a separate peace with Aegon II sacrificing his former squire in the process. If I fight for somebody I want to know what I'm in for - and if the guy in charge doesn't even say he want to replace the king then I can't be sure he would not eventually bend the knee to that king (again) or to his son or grandson. And if that happens I might find myself a traitor against the Crown if I did questionable deeds in the service of that guy. Which is why I might not really be willing to fight for the guy in the first place. The poisoners of Aegon II most certainly thought they were doing Aegon III a favor, yet Cregan Stark, a supporter of Aegon III, still decided to punish them for this deed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Crow Posted August 15, 2015 Share Posted August 15, 2015 Credibility. No matter when Robert and his backers - John Arryn certainly and probably Rickard Stark - conceived the idea for putting him on the throne, he needed that victory to make a proclamation credible. Its at that point that they move from being rebels demanding redress of their grievances to being the supporters of King Robert in a civil war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
purple-eyes Posted August 15, 2015 Share Posted August 15, 2015 Noble woman of Dorne seems quite into politics. They were raised as possible heirs. Is it possible that Elia was a co-planner for deposing Aerys? This is why she was kind of cool to rhaegar's jerkish actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFDanny Posted August 15, 2015 Share Posted August 15, 2015 The answer is: Why the hell not? Because of the Lannisters, the Tyrells, the Martells, and the Greyjoys. Not to mention any of their bannermen who decide to not give up. Before the sack the rebels don't know what any of these houses would do if Robert seats himself on the throne, or the rebels decide it belongs to someone else. They maybe signing on to a whole new civil war. The act of claiming the throne for Robert is still a dangerous one, even if one discounts Aerys, or any other Targaryen claim. It's a gamble. One they obviously won, but still a gamble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFDanny Posted August 15, 2015 Share Posted August 15, 2015 Credibility. No matter when Robert and his backers - John Arryn certainly and probably Rickard Stark - conceived the idea for putting him on the throne, he needed that victory to make a proclamation credible. Its at that point that they move from being rebels demanding redress of their grievances to being the supporters of King Robert in a civil war. My guess is that the rebels start out with a different goal. I think what originally binds them together is a pact to reestablish independent kingdoms. Once the rebellion starts it puts the crown of all Westeros in their grasp and they finally decide to take it after the Trident. After all, they have spent the last year shedding blood against the Targaryens while the rest of the High Lords either fought for Aerys, or sat back and did nothing. Why should they reward them with independence? It might mean more war, but they can see a chance to settle the war on their terms, and not having to consider the interests of loyalists or the timid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alia of the knife Posted August 15, 2015 Share Posted August 15, 2015 Well, at that point, I would think that Robert would have to claim the throne. He and the rebels are all in. If, as in Maximus style, he just wanted to restore order after the Targaryens are gone, take his army and march back to the Stormlands, he can't hope to EVER be safe again no matter who the new monarch is, because they will remember his uprising and remember his victory. He had to be king just to protect himself. I'm currently reading about the Norman period in England and France after the death of WTC, and the reign of his son Henry I, and the Norman barons were ALWAYS rising up, and Henry had to fight down and dirty, so even as king, you aren't always secure, but, successful rebels never will be, even if they be dispatched in the comfy dark of their beds at night when they thought they were forgotten about. Was there a faction who wanted neither Aerys OR Rhaegar, but someone else like Robert with a blood claim? And now that we are getting all this "information dump," from the WB, it brings into question Neds interesting statement from the book about Roberts having the "better" claim." Were they speaking about any possible claim of Neds from a combat standpoint, or a blood standpoint as there have been some theories that Rhaegar and Lyanna may not have been the first Targ./Stark match. I'm guessing this is where tPaTQ comes into it with the rumor that Rhaenayras son seretly married the bastard sister of Cregan Stark? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. Stargaryen Posted August 15, 2015 Share Posted August 15, 2015 This thread: http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/95894-aenys-is-wife-a-stark/page-12 Thanks again. You either have a better memory, or stronger search fu, than me. Didn't seem to contain new information, though. Robert only proclaiming himself after the Trident raises the question as to why Ned went along with that. Surely the conservative Stark view on kingship would have been that the throne would pass to Aerys and Rhaegar's immediate heirs after their deaths rather than to Robert. If the question had been left open until after the Trident I really wonder why Robert didn't face any opposition. If Robert hadn't made his claim known before the Trident for what did the rebel movement actually fight for? Robert/Ned had personal motivations to fight against Aerys II (to save their heads) but Jon Arryn, Hoster Tully, and all their allies and vassals would have had other, more pragmatic reasons. I cannot imagine Hoster teaming up with the rebels if he did not also expect to overthrow the Targaryen regime in its entirety - and that would have meant installing Robert as king. Deposing/killing Aerys or Rhaegar in favor of Aegon or Viserys wouldn't have put the rebels in a good position once the new king reached his majority (Aegon may have worked better since the child wouldn't have remembered his father or grandfather whereas Viserys would clearly have understood and known what happened around him - and may thus have hold a grudge against the rebels). Aegon III seems to have overcome such feelings - but then, the Dance was a Targaryen civil whereas the Rebellion clearly was a war fought against House Targaryen (despite the fact that Robert was the closest cousin of the royal family). Well, it seems you didn't know about, or were ignoring, the second SSM containing the "just after" part. While it's not new, it's relevant to the discussion. As to why GRRM drew it up that way, that's a question for him to answer. Imo, either scenario can make sense. Assuming Robert did in fact wait until just after the Trident to declare himself king, or at least his intent to take the throne, I'd say that had to do with killing Rhaegar. Once he was gone, the Targaryens were a lost cause. Aerys had to go, and Viserys and Aegon were too young to be kings in such an unstable time. Also, I wouldn't say that Robert's public declaration just after the Trident is necessarily mutually exclusive from earlier behind the scenes discussions about putting Robert on the throne. Hoster Tully and Jon Arryn could have well known that was the endgame, maybe Robert too, without making it public knowledge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Varys Posted August 15, 2015 Share Posted August 15, 2015 SFDanny, I really don't by this 'independence pact'. Why would any great lord be content with a small crown if he could have the big one? Not to mention that there were people not in this pact, most notably Tywin, Mace, and Doran. If they then remained a united kingdom they could easily subdue the others as soon as the secessionists no longer formed a united bloc, right? And to remain such a bloc they would fare better if they remained united - not to mention that no great lord had any claim to the Crownlands or the KL/the Iron Throne so what would the secessionists do with them. Treat it like Berlin after the World War II? Alia, there are historical precedents for great magnates to enforce their will on weak or boy kings - the Lords Appellant (which George used as a model for the Lords Declarant) against Richard II, the Duke of York against Henry VI prior to him claiming the throne for himself, and so forth. Oaths of fealty were worth nothing in the middle ages. But this kind of thing is dangerous if a king comes into his own or has the power to strike back - which Richard II shortly before he was deposed and killed. Considering that Robert and the rebels had no pretext to blame anyone but the Mad King and Rhaegar for why they were rebelling - the whole 'evil counselors' excuse usually used wouldn't work there in light of the fact that the King himself wanted them dead - it is actually odd that Robert claimed the crown this late. But it makes some sense considering the fact that he himself wasn't on top things or an actual leader until after the Battle of the Bells. I'd imagine that the rebels had privately agreed what would be done should they win when they met at Riverrun for the double wedding. And if you are marching against the king and/or his heir you better place yourself on their level. Outlaw and traitor doesn't sound as good as 'I'm the true king'... JS, I knew that but it is kind of ambiguous whether the whole thing refers to Robert putting forth his claim to the throne or to him declaring himself king. I expect there could have been more or less open talk that he would take the throne should they win before the Trident, but Robert may only declared himself King Robert I Baratheon after the battle. As I'm saying above, the question that matters to me there is that average rebel lord signing up to the Rebellion voluntarily (i.e. Hoster and the average Riverlord) would have to want to know what they were signing up for. Marrying Cat and Lysa to Ned and Jon is going to matter much if King Viserys III's regents later take your head because you committed crimes against the king's parents during the war... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Naufragus Posted August 15, 2015 Share Posted August 15, 2015 OK here is something I am very sketchy on..... All I have ever heard about Lyanna is that she died of a "summer chill" - fair enough But then we have the 3 very famous KG and then their cairns. So how do people think they died? A summer chill? Coincidentally all in the same spot. Surely both the families and the crown would want to know what happened to the KG. Do they know Ned killed them. And if so what was the reason? Just a random meet up or "guarding" Lyanna. There are many loose ends. One doesn't have to be Varys to piece together Stark Bastard, Dead Lyanna, Dead KG. Regardless of if anyone clues on the bastard, Ned fighting 3 KG - and the level of the KG involved - and killing them all would seem to be a tale that would be told and part of Ned's reputation. What is recorded in the White Book about their deaths? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ygrain Posted August 15, 2015 Share Posted August 15, 2015 That "summer chill" is stated somewhere, or is this your assumption how Ned explained Lyanna's death? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Naufragus Posted August 15, 2015 Share Posted August 15, 2015 Im not sure the "summer chill" is in the text, I believe that's what I have seen in a wiki entry - when dealing with this topic a lot of details get presented as fact which are often just supposition or conventional wisdom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ygrain Posted August 15, 2015 Share Posted August 15, 2015 It is definitely not in the text and if it is stated in the wiki, it's unbased. Might it be that your memory is conflating something that you have read in the threads, e.g. as an example of a plausible explanation that Ned offered as a cause of Lyanna's death? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selena Posted August 15, 2015 Share Posted August 15, 2015 OK here is something I am very sketchy on..... All I have ever heard about Lyanna is that she died of a "summer chill" - fair enough But then we have the 3 very famous KG and then their cairns. So how do people think they died? A summer chill? Coincidentally all in the same spot. Surely both the families and the crown would want to know what happened to the KG. Do they know Ned killed them. And if so what was the reason? Just a random meet up or "guarding" Lyanna. There are many loose ends. One doesn't have to be Varys to piece together Stark Bastard, Dead Lyanna, Dead KG. Regardless of if anyone clues on the bastard, Ned fighting 3 KG - and the level of the KG involved - and killing them all would seem to be a tale that would be told and part of Ned's reputation. What is recorded in the White Book about their deaths I am thinking there was some "official " story put out, most likely with very basic detail. Ned would make sure the families of the men with him knew they died well and bravely but I dont think he would feel they needed to know anything more then that (I am not saying they wouldnt, just that he would feel that) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhaenys_Targaryen Posted August 15, 2015 Share Posted August 15, 2015 OK here is something I am very sketchy on..... All I have ever heard about Lyanna is that she died of a "summer chill" - fair enough But then we have the 3 very famous KG and then their cairns. So how do people think they died? A summer chill? Coincidentally all in the same spot. Surely both the families and the crown would want to know what happened to the KG. Do they know Ned killed them. And if so what was the reason? Just a random meet up or "guarding" Lyanna. There are many loose ends. One doesn't have to be Varys to piece together Stark Bastard, Dead Lyanna, Dead KG. Regardless of if anyone clues on the bastard, Ned fighting 3 KG - and the level of the KG involved - and killing them all would seem to be a tale that would be told and part of Ned's reputation. What is recorded in the White Book about their deaths? "summer chill" is stated nowhere. Could you please link the wiki page you read it on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.