The benefits of Targaryen inbreeding

[Lord Varys]

11 minutes ago, Lord of Raventree Hall said:

Firstly, I agree with you. The Lannisters were far from the only problem, I just see them as the biggest threat. However, your point about Renly is fair. So my question to you is this : Do you think Renly would have rebelled say if Robert had a handsome Baratheon looking heir who was most likely not a sociopath? I am just wondering. I always thought part of Renly's decision to rebel was because of Joffrey.

That is an interesting question. We don't know enough about Renly to answer it properly but I'd say Joffrey is not as relevant there than Cersei and Renly's relationship with her. They didn't get along. Had Renly and Robert's queen - whoever she might be - gotten along Renly could have become a strong ally of hers in the wake of Robert's death. But they did not.

We also don't know when exactly Renly decided he would be king. When Robert was dying? Or only after Ned rejected his offer and he felt the need to flee?

He could have intended to use Eddard Stark as tool to get Cersei and the children under their power and then arrange their deaths. Then he could deal with Ned and declare himself king. That would have been a dangerous game but if he had gotten many trusted Stormlanders into the city as quickly as possible it could have worked.

We don't really know. However, I think the fact that he didn't make any attempt to win Cersei's trust or offer her his help is quite telling.

11 minutes ago, Lord of Raventree Hall said:

Also, I think Stannis could have been useful if Robert had simply given him the time of day.

Stannis was somewhat useful but he still is willing to kill Robert's widow and children over a mere suspicion of his. That is an ugly thing to do. And he is lying - perhaps even to himself - that he doesn't want the throne. He wants it very much to show the world that he can be a better king than Robert. Else he would have reached an understanding with Renly or had allowed Robert's children to take the throne. After all, nobody forces him to act upon his mere belief that Cersei's children are not Robert's.

And it is also very telling that he never makes an attempt to talk to Robert about the incest. He leaves to the mercy of Cersei Lannister, a woman he believes murdered Jon Arryn. It would have been his duty to Robert to tell him about his suspicions, both in relation to the twincest and the parentage of Robert's children but also in relation to the death of Jon Arryn. But he did nothing of that sort

He did not only betray Robert's children but also Robert himself. And that makes him a very dangerous man.

11 minutes ago, Lord of Raventree Hall said:

As far as giving rebel houses places on the council, that is actually not what I meant. I don't mean put a Martell or Tyrell on the council, I mean first choice would be to give council positions to Storm, Vale, River, Northern lords, as they were your main allies, but if that fails, Mace Tyrell would still be better than Jaime Lannister or some other Lannister pawn. (However I think trying to find another lord from the Reach would be better). I mean honestly, there had to be better options than Petyr, Varys, or  Pycelle for the small council, and Jaime Lannister should probably never have been given so much.

Oh, I meant the Tullys, Arryns, Starks, Stormlords, etc. by 'rebels' there. Robert's crucial mistake is that he didn't appoint competent men he could trust. Those could have been commoners just as much smaller or greater lords who had proven their loyalty.

11 minutes ago, Lord of Raventree Hall said:

I still am also one who thinks marrying Cersei Lannister was a mistake, the Lannisters were obviously not loyal and just jumped on board once the war was already won. Perhaps you disagree, but Lannister control of King's Landing even pre Robert's death was way too complete. 

Robert definitely gave Cersei too much (especially the squire thing proved deadly) but the idea of the marriage was not wrong. It would have great if it worked. Robert certainly would have needed Tywin's support in a coming war with Viserys III. 

But strictly speaking the government of the Realm was not in Lannister hands. Aside from Pycelle there were no Lannister men on the Small Council. The problem was that Robert allowed Cersei to surround his children with her own people, mostly Lannister cronies like the Hound and others. He should have taken his children under his own wing but he failed at that.

[cpg2016]

Quote

We also don't know when exactly Renly decided he would be king. When Robert was dying? Or only after Ned rejected his offer and he felt the need to flee?

We know Renly wants to be the power broker behind the throne from as early as we meet him, essentially.  His plot to put Margaery on the throne in place of Cersei is, in light of his later actions, almost explicitly so he can be the power directing Tyrell patronage.  Since we know Robert doesn't care about governing, this means Renly can swap Lannister domination for Tyrell domination of the court, and take credit for it.

Quote

And it is also very telling that he never makes an attempt to talk to Robert about the incest. He leaves to the mercy of Cersei Lannister, a woman he believes murdered Jon Arryn. 

This and the rest of your screed on Stannis is explicitly disproven by the text.  Stannis says very clearly that because of his strained relationship with Robert, he thought that him bringing his suspicions forward would be viewed as an attempt to usurp their place in the line of succession.  So he went to Jon Arryn, who could convince Robert of the truth.  That isn't a betrayal, its an intelligent way to explain something to someone without seeming self serving.

Quote

Stannis was somewhat useful but he still is willing to kill Robert's widow and children over a mere suspicion of his.

It was vastly more than a suspicion.  Remember, Cersei and Jamie aren't exactly discreet about their affair.  A ton of people find out, including Littlefinger, Pycelle, and Varys.  The kids are merely the proof of the affair.  And again, he and Jon Arryn do a great deal of investigating of the issue, so its not exactly an off the cuff accusation.

You are right that he wants the throne, because he sees what a shitty job Robert has done.  And unlike many characters, Stannis' political convictions evolve.  He comes to a greater and more revolutionary ideal of kingship than most other characters through his arc.  But at its legal core, he is correct all along; he should be king (or heir).

Quote

Robert's crucial mistake is that he didn't appoint competent men he could trust. Those could have been commoners just as much smaller or greater lords who had proven their loyalty.

What?  How do you get this?  He appoints Jon Arryn as Hand, who he can trust.  Barristan Selmy as Lord Commander, who he can also trust.  He has no authority to keep Pycelle off the Council, and it risks alienating the Citadel if he tries, and he has no real reason to suspect him anyway.  He puts his brothers on, and if you can't trust family you can't trust anyone.  And they repay that trust, mostly.  Stannis is a loyal councilor, and even Renly's plotting is more to advance himself within the court hierarchy than to overthrow or betray Robert.

He makes two mistakes.  One is keeping Varys around, though to be fair, anyone who can play the long game for 20 years or so is a tough guy to sniff out as a rat.  And two and vastly more damning, is he allows Littlefinger to stick around.  Which is a legitimately huge mistake.  But he still went 4/6 at worst.

Quote

 but the idea of the marriage was not wrong. It would have great if it worked. Robert certainly would have needed Tywin's support in a coming war with Viserys III. 

It is actually debatable if there was even another option open for Robert.  No Stark girls are left.  The Tully's are spoken for.  Even if Margaery or Arianne are alive yet, they are far too young for dynastic purposes, and the arch-loyalist Tyrells and Martells can't be rewarded with a royal marriage anyway.  No Arryn women.  And no Greyjoy women, as Asha is also too young.  So who else is there?   Either the extremely powerful and influential Lannisters of dubious loyalty, or a secondary House which has less prestige, fewer swords, and less wealth.

[Lord Varys]

51 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

We know Renly wants to be the power broker behind the throne from as early as we meet him, essentially.  His plot to put Margaery on the throne in place of Cersei is, in light of his later actions, almost explicitly so he can be the power directing Tyrell patronage.  Since we know Robert doesn't care about governing, this means Renly can swap Lannister domination for Tyrell domination of the court, and take credit for it.

Yeah, no question about that. Although I'd say that it was actually more likely Renly would have been the power behind Margaery, not the Tyrells. Only if some of them came permanently to court, too. Which would most likely have been the case.

51 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

This and the rest of your screed on Stannis is explicitly disproven by the text.  Stannis says very clearly that because of his strained relationship with Robert, he thought that him bringing his suspicions forward would be viewed as an attempt to usurp their place in the line of succession.  So he went to Jon Arryn, who could convince Robert of the truth.  That isn't a betrayal, its an intelligent way to explain something to someone without seeming self serving.

I was no referring to that. I was referring to the fact that Stannis failed to inform Robert (and later Ned) about his suspicions even after Jon Arryn had died. That was a dereliction of duty as was the fact that Stannis took most of the ships of the royal fleet and left for Dragonstone in his king's absence, without the permission or leave of the king. This was treason, too. He only got away with that because Robert did visibly not care. He was most likely happy that Stannis was gone. But Robert could have sent Ilyn Payne to Dragonstone to bring him Stannis' head for something like that.

Going to Jon first was smart but not necessary. It was Stannis' duty inform his brother and king about Cersei's treason, no matter how it looked. Stannis would expect the same thing from his sworn men. He doesn't allow them such judgments. If Davos saw Selyse fuck Ser Axell Stannis would expect him to tell him immediately, never mind the fact that this might look as he wanted to slander Selyse and Axell.

51 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

It was vastly more than a suspicion.  Remember, Cersei and Jamie aren't exactly discreet about their affair.  A ton of people find out, including Littlefinger, Pycelle, and Varys.  The kids are merely the proof of the affair.  And again, he and Jon Arryn do a great deal of investigating of the issue, so its not exactly an off the cuff accusation.

As far as we know Stannis has no proof. This is discussed in the books. The looks of the bastards prove nothing. And unlike Ned there is no indication that either Stannis nor Jon Arryn ever confronted Cersei or Jaime about the affair nor that they witnessed them having sex. And even if the incestuous adultery was 'proven' this still isn't proof that Cersei's children are not Robert's.

51 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

You are right that he wants the throne, because he sees what a shitty job Robert has done.  And unlike many characters, Stannis' political convictions evolve.  He comes to a greater and more revolutionary ideal of kingship than most other characters through his arc.  But at its legal core, he is correct all along; he should be king (or heir).

If you go along with the idea that Robert is 'the rightful king' and not just a usurper with bloody hands. I agree that Robert and the rebels had a right to depose Mad Aerys (and perhaps even kill Rhaegar for his crimes). But all that would still not make Robert king. Aerys II had other heirs - Viserys III, Rhaella, Daenerys, Rhaegar's little children - that would have come first. And we know that even Robb shares such a view - he leads a war against Joffrey but admits and agrees that Tommen should be king after Joffrey because he has no issues with him. The idea that one bad apple takes away the right to the kingship from a royal dynasty doesn't seem to be a view that is shared by the people of Westeros.

But let us not make this a thread about Stannis. And I agree that Stannis gets better later on.

51 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

What?  How do you get this?  He appoints Jon Arryn as Hand, who he can trust.  Barristan Selmy as Lord Commander, who he can also trust.  He has no authority to keep Pycelle off the Council, and it risks alienating the Citadel if he tries, and he has no real reason to suspect him anyway.  He puts his brothers on, and if you can't trust family you can't trust anyone.  And they repay that trust, mostly.  Stannis is a loyal councilor, and even Renly's plotting is more to advance himself within the court hierarchy than to overthrow or betray Robert.

Yeah, Jon Arryn was a pretty good choice. But in his case he seems to have been unwilling to follow his advice. Robert wasn't a king like Aerys I who basically handed the Realm to Bloodraven and retreated to his study. He did what he wanted. And what he wanted was very often foolish, unmaking the good decisions of his Hand and councilors. Else the Crown would have never been in dept as much as it is in 298 AC.

Not sure how loyal Selmy would have been if push came to shove. Do we know whether he would have led an army against Viserys III or killed in in battle? I doubt it.

51 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

He makes two mistakes.  One is keeping Varys around, though to be fair, anyone who can play the long game for 20 years or so is a tough guy to sniff out as a rat.  And two and vastly more damning, is he allows Littlefinger to stick around.  Which is a legitimately huge mistake.  But he still went 4/6 at worst.

He could have found better men. Men that would work for the benefit of the Realm and quietly and competently manage things. Jon Arryn and Stannis were most likely good and competent men (although Stannis betrayed him in the end, too). Renly seems to have been little but an ambitious climber, and we don't know who was on the council before Renly and Littlefinger joined it. There would have been other - and perhaps even more corrupt - Masters of Coin and Law. Only Stannis, Jon, Varys, and Selmy would have been there from the very beginning, it seems.

And Pycelle - well, he is an old man. Robert could have retired him. Or he could have made a Cressen-Pylos arrangement.

51 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

It is actually debatable if there was even another option open for Robert.  No Stark girls are left.  The Tully's are spoken for.  Even if Margaery or Arianne are alive yet, they are far too young for dynastic purposes, and the arch-loyalist Tyrells and Martells can't be rewarded with a royal marriage anyway.  No Arryn women.  And no Greyjoy women, as Asha is also too young.  So who else is there?   Either the extremely powerful and influential Lannisters of dubious loyalty, or a secondary House which has less prestige, fewer swords, and less wealth.

Yeah, Cersei was a good match in that regard. But a prestigious Stormlander woman could have worked, too. One of those who also had Targaryen blood. A Penrose, perhaps, or a Tarth or Dondarrion. It would have ensured that the family of the queen behaved.

A Hightower could also have been an option if we are talking about great houses. Or a Tyrell (perhaps one of Mace's sisters, if they were still unmarried in 283 AC).

[cpg2016]

Quote

I was no referring to that. I was referring to the fact that Stannis failed to inform Robert (and later Ned) about his suspicions even after Jon Arryn had died. That was a dereliction of duty as was the fact that Stannis took most of the ships of the royal fleet and left for Dragonstone in his king's absence, without the permission or leave of the king.

Well, that is highly debatable.  His confidant was just murdered, and he thinks he knows by who.  He's right to be nervous.  What use is his knowledge if he knows Robert won't listen (and every indication we have is that Stannis is correct about that)?  And he has every right to take the Royal Fleet to Dragonstone; he is the Master of Ships, they are his responsibility, and Dragonstone has been considered the home port for the Royal Fleet in the past, especially since it is his seat.  He wasn't stealing them, a la Aurane Waters.

Quote

 It was Stannis' duty inform his brother and king about Cersei's treason, no matter how it looked. Stannis would expect the same thing from his sworn men. He doesn't allow them such judgments. If Davos saw Selyse fuck Ser Axell Stannis would expect him to tell him immediately, never mind the fact that this might look as he wanted to slander Selyse and Axell.

Yes but the difference lies in the man who is being told.  Stannis believes in justice, or some version of it.  He won't care what the appearance is; anyway, he trusts Davos because Davos speaks truth to power, not despite it.  From all we know of Robert, if Stannis had come to him about it, he wouldn't have believed him.  And moreover, it is a big secret that would almost certainly start a civil war.  Stannis is 100% right to investigate his suspicions before informing Robert, who we are told would fly into a rage and execute the daughter of one of his most powerful vassals.  As for Jon Arryn, Stannis can't be sure he was murdered or not, or why - Stannis doesn't do anything wrong, at any point.  

Quote

As far as we know Stannis has no proof. This is discussed in the books. The looks of the bastards prove nothing. And unlike Ned there is no indication that either Stannis nor Jon Arryn ever confronted Cersei or Jaime about the affair nor that they witnessed them having sex. And even if the incestuous adultery was 'proven' this still isn't proof that Cersei's children are not Robert's.

The novels are explicit that the looks of Robert's children versus Cersei and Jaime's is highly suggestive.  When coupled with the genealogy book Jon Arryn investigates, plus the general knowledge of the court, the overall impression is that this would have been enough evidence in sum to "convict" Cersei and Jaime in the eyes of both the public and the law.

Quote

The idea that one bad apple takes away the right to the kingship from a royal dynasty doesn't seem to be a view that is shared by the people of Westeros.

True.  The flip side to that is that we have examples of Great Councils in which multiple lines of heirs are considered and one is elected.  Given that Robert is acclaimed King by no less than five Lords Paramount, I imagine this is something of a foregone conclusion.  Besides, the Targaryens are only royal by right of conquest; why shouldn't Robert be as well?

Quote

He did what he wanted. And what he wanted was very often foolish, unmaking the good decisions of his Hand and councilors. Else the Crown would have never been in dept as much as it is in 298 AC.

There is a strong implication that a lot of the crown's problems are coming from Littlefinger's fraud.  But I am not trying to argue that Robert was a bad king.  But he was good at surrounding himself with trustworthy, effective people.  Notably Arryn, Stannis, and Selmy.  Littlefinger is there on Arryn's advice.

Quote

And Pycelle - well, he is an old man. Robert could have retired him. Or he could have made a Cressen-Pylos arrangement.

He explicitly cannot do this.  The Grandmaester is elected by the Conclave of the Citadel, and serves for life.  Robert could dismiss him, but would just be pissing off a powerful faction of his realm for no reason, and for no apparent gain.  Again, he doesn't know Pycelle is in Tywin's pocket.

Quote

Not sure how loyal Selmy would have been if push came to shove. Do we know whether he would have led an army against Viserys III or killed in in battle? I doubt it.

Everything we know about Barristan Selmy suggests he would have been a loyal commander.  He keeps to his word, is unflagging in his duty, and as we later find through his POV, was disgusted with Aerys II anyway.  His honor means too much to betray the man who pardoned him.  In the absence of other evidence, we must assume he would have been diligent in his duties to the man he swore to serve for sixteen years.

Quote

But a prestigious Stormlander woman could have worked, too. One of those who also had Targaryen blood. A Penrose, perhaps, or a Tarth or Dondarrion. It would have ensured that the family of the queen behaved.

But this isn't the point of a dynastic match.  Robert is ascending to a throne on the back of a specific coalition; he needs to rule more than just that.  First off, it isn't dynastically kosher for Robert to marry someone from such a relatively lowborn House.  The Targaryen heirs intermarried exclusively with those of Valyrian blood or the houses of Lord Paramounts, IIRC.  Second, from a feudal perspective, marrying a lower-born Stormlands lady will alienate other powerful factions.  The Baratheons already have Storm's End, Dragonstone, two positions on the Small Council, and the throne.  To make the queen another Stormlander will alienate factions that need to be appeased.  By spreading the wealth a little bit, Robert gets away with not giving Tywin any other position of importance.

And besides, it's quite clear that Robert didn't care enough to make anyone behave themselves.  His coalition has more than enough power to crush Tywin, if it comes to that.  He just never bothered to see the truth in front of his own eyes.

Quote

A Hightower could also have been an option if we are talking about great houses. Or a Tyrell (perhaps one of Mace's sisters, if they were still unmarried in 283 AC).

Except the Tyrell's were loyalists and a royal match is a MASSIVE feudal prize.  Look at how many positions Cersei ends up getting for her close kin.  To marry a Tyrell or Tyrell vassal would be a slap in the face to all the people who risked their lives to make him king.  And that is what happens IOTL.  Stannis is married to a Florent, one of the Reach families most vocal about their better claim to Highgarden than the Tyrells.  This is very clearly a way to curb Tyrell power and influence, and send a warning shot across the bow of Mace in case he keeps any Targaryen sympathies.

[Jaak]

1 hour ago, cpg2016 said:

 To marry a Tyrell or Tyrell vassal would be a slap in the face to all the people who risked their lives to make him king.  And that is what happens IOTL.  Stannis is married to a Florent, one of the Reach families most vocal about their better claim to Highgarden than the Tyrells.  This is very clearly a way to curb Tyrell power and influence, and send a warning shot across the bow of Mace in case he keeps any Targaryen sympathies.

What would have happened if Robert had married Delena Florent?

[Lord Varys]

53 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

Well, that is highly debatable.  His confidant was just murdered, and he thinks he knows by who.  He's right to be nervous.  What use is his knowledge if he knows Robert won't listen (and every indication we have is that Stannis is correct about that)?  And he has every right to take the Royal Fleet to Dragonstone; he is the Master of Ships, they are his responsibility, and Dragonstone has been considered the home port for the Royal Fleet in the past, especially since it is his seat.  He wasn't stealing them, a la Aurane Waters.

He doesn't have the right to take the majority of the royal fleet to his own seat indefinitely. Not without royal leave. The royal fleet is based in KL, not Dragonstone. It never was, actually. And Stannis spent the majority of his brother's reign at court, he seldom visited his wife and daughter.

Stannis has a right to be suspicious, but that should only have strengthened his determination to tell Robert about his suspicions. And before he doesn't tell Robert he can't know what he is going to do. He cannot use the excuse he is using. He has no right to keep his knowledge (or what he thinks to be true) from the king.

You should also keep in mind that Stannis immediately began to fortify Dragonstone and hiring sellsails after he came to Dragonstone. He also closed the harbor at that time. Stannis is preparing for war throughout AGoT. And we don't know whether he is preparing for war against Robert or Cersei. I think the latter but the fact that he does prepare for war means he expects his royal brother to die. And he does literally nothing to prevent this. In that sense Stannis is partially to blame for Robert's death.

53 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

Yes but the difference lies in the man who is being told.  Stannis believes in justice, or some version of it.  He won't care what the appearance is; anyway, he trusts Davos because Davos speaks truth to power, not despite it.  From all we know of Robert, if Stannis had come to him about it, he wouldn't have believed him.  And moreover, it is a big secret that would almost certainly start a civil war. Stannis is 100% right to investigate his suspicions before informing Robert, who we are told would fly into a rage and execute the daughter of one of his most powerful vassals.  As for Jon Arryn, Stannis can't be sure he was murdered or not, or why - Stannis doesn't do anything wrong, at any point.  

He is done investigating by the time he goes to Dragonstone. And he was in no immediate danger at that point. Remember that Cersei and the children were not, in fact, in KL when Jon Arryn died. They were accompanying Tywin back to Casterly Rock (Jaime most likely was with them, too). That means that Stannis had every opportunity to approach Robert and talk to him about his suspicions without fearing that Cersei would interfere. And once Stannis had put the bug in Robert's ear that Cersei might cuckold him - pointing out the looks of his children by her, comparing them to Edric Storm, Gendry, Barra, Mya Stone, etc. - Robert's mind would begin to work, too. He would try to remember whether he actually had had vaginal intercourse around the time Cersei conceived, and he would most likely be unable to recall such things. Robert does not like Cersei. He would have listened. He would not have thanked Stannis, though.

Instead, Stannis most likely expected Robert to come to him to offer him the Handship. Then he would have told him. But instead Robert most likely announced his intention to visit Eddard Stark in Winterfell. And that was the last straw for Stannis. He had enough. He decided that Robert could die if he did prefer his old buddy to his loyal brother.

53 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

The novels are explicit that the looks of Robert's children versus Cersei and Jaime's is highly suggestive.  When coupled with the genealogy book Jon Arryn investigates, plus the general knowledge of the court, the overall impression is that this would have been enough evidence in sum to "convict" Cersei and Jaime in the eyes of both the public and the law.

It may have been enough to convince Robert but it is hardly evidence. Very few people actually seem to believe that story. And while the king has still recognized and acknowledged his queen's children as his public opinion doesn't matter. Stannis has no right to challenge the succession or rebel against King Joffrey. He was the chosen heir of his late royal brother and he knew that. He shot himself in the foot there by not telling Robert, just as Ned later did when he kept the truth from Robert.

53 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

True.  The flip side to that is that we have examples of Great Councils in which multiple lines of heirs are considered and one is elected.  Given that Robert is acclaimed King by no less than five Lords Paramount, I imagine this is something of a foregone conclusion.  Besides, the Targaryens are only royal by right of conquest; why shouldn't Robert be as well?

Robert has a claim to the throne as a Targaryen descendant and first cousin once removed of Aerys II but he was his subject. He did him homage as his rightful king just as Daemon Blackfyre did Daeron II. It is always rebellion and treason if you declare yourself king in such a setting. You can spin a tale - the king is falseborn, the king threatened my life, etc. In Robert's case the latter was true but this didn't make him king. The crown should have gone to Aerys II's proper heirs, people that were innocent of Aerys' crimes.

Right of conquest is something you can justify your actions if you are a sovereign monarch or head of state attacking another state. That's what Aegon the Conqueror did. But if you acknowledge a king and his heirs - as Robert certainly did - you cannot presume to take that crown by conquest. You have no right to declare war on your king and his family.

The original sin of the Baratheon dynasty is the (unpunished) murder of Aerys II and the murders of Elia and the royal children in Robert's name. And that's what comes back right to bite them in the ass. Hard.

53 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

There is a strong implication that a lot of the crown's problems are coming from Littlefinger's fraud.  But I am not trying to argue that Robert was a bad king.  But he was good at surrounding himself with trustworthy, effective people.  Notably Arryn, Stannis, and Selmy.  Littlefinger is there on Arryn's advice.

Littlefinger is only Master of Coin for a couple of years. Keep in mind how young the man still is. It is quite clear that he only rose so high as quickly as he did because he was very effective at making money. That's what got him the job. And the fact that Jon Arryn made him Master of Coin rather than some other lord or nobleman who wanted the office indicates that they were in dire need already. Which means that Robert basically had ruined the Realm long before that.

53 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

He explicitly cannot do this.  The Grandmaester is elected by the Conclave of the Citadel, and serves for life.  Robert could dismiss him, but would just be pissing off a powerful faction of his realm for no reason, and for no apparent gain.  Again, he doesn't know Pycelle is in Tywin's pocket.

That is technically correct but what would the Citadel do if a king didn't care about that? Declare war on the Iron Throne?

It is quite likely that many ailing Grand Maesters were only Grand Maester in name in their old age. And even if not, Robert did win a war. Pycelle had been Aerys' man. He could have taken his head for that. Or he could have dismissed him from his council on the basis of that.

53 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

Everything we know about Barristan Selmy suggests he would have been a loyal commander.  He keeps to his word, is unflagging in his duty, and as we later find through his POV, was disgusted with Aerys II anyway.  His honor means too much to betray the man who pardoned him.  In the absence of other evidence, we must assume he would have been diligent in his duties to the man he swore to serve for sixteen years.

I'd still not bet on him leading an army against the son of the man whom he got out of Duskendale. And the grandson of the man for whom he slew Maelys the Monstrous on the Stepstones. Selmy was a Targaryen man. He may not have chosen to serve Viserys III but I doubt he would have been keen to fight against him.

53 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

But this isn't the point of a dynastic match.  Robert is ascending to a throne on the back of a specific coalition; he needs to rule more than just that.  First off, it isn't dynastically kosher for Robert to marry someone from such a relatively lowborn House.  The Targaryen heirs intermarried exclusively with those of Valyrian blood or the houses of Lord Paramounts, IIRC.

The Targaryens had rather odd marriage choices. Mostly they are incestuous unions or Velaryons (heavily interrelated Valyrian kin). There are few Baratheon matches but of the great houses we only have three Arryn matches, three Hightower, and three Martell matches. Aegon V tried to marry his children into houses Baratheon, Tully, Tyrell, and Redwyne, but nothing came of that.

The other names include the odd choices of Harroway, Costayne, and Westerling (three wives of Maegor the Cruel), Royce, Corbray, Dondarrion, Penrose (two times), Dayne, and Blackwood.

I assume that the Dondarrion and Penrose matches are actually cousin marriages (Rhaena Targaryen and Garmund Hightower had six daughters some of which might have been the ancestors of the brides of the sons of Daeron II - this is effectively confirmed for Aelinor Penrose who was Aerys I's cousin on the Targaryen side), explaining some of those odd choices.

Marriages into great houses were actually comparatively uncommon.

In that sense the Robert-Cersei match is somewhat uncommon, too.

53 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

Second, from a feudal perspective, marrying a lower-born Stormlands lady will alienate other powerful factions.  The Baratheons already have Storm's End, Dragonstone, two positions on the Small Council, and the throne.  To make the queen another Stormlander will alienate factions that need to be appeased.  By spreading the wealth a little bit, Robert gets away with not giving Tywin any other position of importance.

Well, the Targaryens did that kind of thing, too, on occasion. It works. And it would have worked even better if Robert had marry a woman who also had Targaryen blood.

53 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

And besides, it's quite clear that Robert didn't care enough to make anyone behave themselves.  His coalition has more than enough power to crush Tywin, if it comes to that.  He just never bothered to see the truth in front of his own eyes.

The reason Jon Arryn gives is that they wanted to be sure Tywin would be on their side should Viserys III attack. That's why Robert married Cersei.

53 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

Except the Tyrell's were loyalists and a royal match is a MASSIVE feudal prize.  Look at how many positions Cersei ends up getting for her close kin.  To marry a Tyrell or Tyrell vassal would be a slap in the face to all the people who risked their lives to make him king.  And that is what happens IOTL.  Stannis is married to a Florent, one of the Reach families most vocal about their better claim to Highgarden than the Tyrells.  This is very clearly a way to curb Tyrell power and influence, and send a warning shot across the bow of Mace in case he keeps any Targaryen sympathies.

The idea there would be that Robert extends his loving royal hands to the staunch supporters of the Targaryens. It could have helped to heal the rift in the Realm, to ensure the Reach would stand with Robert should Viserys III come back. Mace would then have played the same role as Tywin was supposed in Jon Arryn's mind. It could have worked. The Tyrells are very pragmatic.

[cpg2016]

Quote

He doesn't have the right to take the majority of the royal fleet to his own seat indefinitely. Not without royal leave. The royal fleet is based in KL, not Dragonstone. It never was, actually. And Stannis spent the majority of his brother's reign at court, he seldom visited his wife and daughter.

Actually, we have evidence that royal fleets have been sent out from Dragonstone before.  Whether that means it's totally based there, or partially, or only occasionally, it's clear that Dragonstone can be a base for the Royal Fleet.  And moreover, we just don't know enough to condemn Stannis for his actions.  The Hand of the King is given authority to act with the King's voice; it is well within the realm of possibility that the various other Small Councillors get similar authority, especially given Robert's attitude towards governance.  Similarly, Jon Arryn may have commanded him to keep the fleet out of Lannister hands.

However, it is difficult to see how having the fleet in KL would have prevented events from occurring as in OTL.  It's VERY easy to see, however, how having them outside the city might help in keeping Cersei's illegitimate children from stealing the throne.

Quote

 

He is done investigating by the time he goes to Dragonstone. And he was in no immediate danger at that point. Remember that Cersei and the children were not, in fact, in KL when Jon Arryn died. 

 

 

So?  Joffrey wasn't in Winterfell when Bran was attacked, either.  He's unearthing a conspiracy about the Queen committing incest with the her brother, who happens to be a noted Kingslayer, the son of one of the most powerful, ruthless men in the kingdom, and the finest swordsman alive to boot.  Of course he should be nervous.

Quote

That means that Stannis had every opportunity to approach Robert and talk to him about his suspicions without fearing that Cersei would interfere.

Yes, but here's the issue: he's not worried about Cersei.  He's worried about Robert.  Best case scenario is Robert believes him, immediately executes his wife and "kids" and a civil war breaks out.  Worst case, Robert thinks Stannis is trying to usurp his son's place in the line of succession, and does something equally rash with regards to Stannis.  Imagine telling YOUR brother his wife was rearing three kids she conceived with her brother.  It's not exactly a conversation you have when you run into each other in the supermarket.

Quote

Robert's mind would begin to work, too. He would try to remember whether he actually had had vaginal intercourse around the time Cersei conceived, and he would most likely be unable to recall such things.

First off, asking him to remember every instance of intercourse for 15 years is a little much.  Second, Robert is hiding from his actions by excusing his drinking.  Yes, sometimes he remembers, but all Cersei has to say is "you hit me and then passed out" and Robert will probably retreat into the self-delusion that allows him to not be miserable, as he does every other time.  He should ALREADY know his kids are bastards if he was willing to even consider it; he only sleeps with Cersei on incredibly rare occasions, so if it hasn't already occurred to him, that argument won't do so now.

Quote

Stannis has no right to challenge the succession or rebel against King Joffrey. He was the chosen heir of his late royal brother and he knew that. He shot himself in the foot there by not telling Robert, just as Ned later did when he kept the truth from Robert.

This is explicitly not true.  Joffrey's claim is dependent on Robert.  If Joffrey is not related to Robert, then he has no claim to the throne and thus any opposition to him in favor of Stannis is perfectly legal.  Ned should have told Robert, because Robert would believe it coming from Ned.

Quote

But if you acknowledge a king and his heirs - as Robert certainly did - you cannot presume to take that crown by conquest. You have no right to declare war on your king and his family.

This is where you are wrong.  That is not, and never has been, how feudalism works.  You acclaim a king, who makes certain promises to you in return for your loyalty and service.  That is why there are so many rituals surrounding giving of rings and such when the feudal contract is made, and why that contract is ceremonially renewed all the time.  If Rhaegar or Viserys had inherited, they also would have performed those ceremonies symbolizing their feudal relationship with their vassals.  Probably not every lord, but certainly the big names would do so, and feudal obligations and rights would flow up and down the chain.

Quote

The original sin of the Baratheon dynasty is the (unpunished) murder of Aerys II and the murders of Elia and the royal children in Robert's name. And that's what comes back right to bite them in the ass. Hard.

While I agree it was wrong, it wasn't actually the Baratheons who did it, and it isn't the Baratheons who are suffering.  Cersei and her kids aren't Baratheons, a fact that the entire realm now knows, FYI.  Robert and his dynasty are brought low because one very greedy man (Littlefinger) manipulated events.

Quote

Littlefinger is only Master of Coin for a couple of years. Keep in mind how young the man still is. It is quite clear that he only rose so high as quickly as he did because he was very effective at making money. That's what got him the job. And the fact that Jon Arryn made him Master of Coin rather than some other lord or nobleman who wanted the office indicates that they were in dire need already. Which means that Robert basically had ruined the Realm long before that.

He's very good at appearing to make money.  All the many "profits" he generated were just loans from the Iron Bank.  I'm not arguing that Robert drove the realm into ruin, just that Littlefinger helped drive that car off the cliff.  His enormous wealth makes it clear he was skimming quite a bit off the top of the royal coffers.  If he's taking hundreds of thousands of dragons for himself... well, that is a meaingful portion of the Crown's debts.

Quote

 

That is technically correct but what would the Citadel do if a king didn't care about that? Declare war on the Iron Throne?

It is quite likely that many ailing Grand Maesters were only Grand Maester in name in their old age. And even if not, Robert did win a war. Pycelle had been Aerys' man. He could have taken his head for that. Or he could have dismissed him from his council on the basis of that.

 

Return the same guy as Grandmaester, most likely.  Look, you are viewing kingship as an absolute monarchy, when in reality it is not.  Robert cannot do anything he pleases; he has obligations to his vassals.  And Pycelle helped him take Kings Landing, is supposedly a neutral party, and firing him pisses off the Citadel.  What possible reason could he have to dismiss him that is worth it?  Why alienate the hugely influential maesters if you don't have to?

Quote

 

I assume that the Dondarrion and Penrose matches are actually cousin marriages (Rhaena Targaryen and Garmund Hightower had six daughters some of which might have been the ancestors of the brides of the sons of Daeron II - this is effectively confirmed for Aelinor Penrose who was Aerys I's cousin on the Targaryen side), explaining some of those odd choices.

Marriages into great houses were actually comparatively uncommon.

In that sense the Robert-Cersei match is somewhat uncommon, too.

 

Excluding Maegor's wives, who IIRC he marries because he knows they are fertile, lets go through the rest.  The eventual Aegon V is only allowed to marry a Blackwood because he's so far down the line of succession.  Ditto Maekar, which takes out one of the Daynes.  I don't have time to go through the rest, but I thinking off the top of my head about reigning monarchs, only three have non-Paramount Lord or Targaryen spouses; Aegon V, Maekar, and Daeron II.  All of those were guys relatively far down the line of succession (e.g. not the heir or the "spare") when they married, meaning their nuptial choices had to be respectable but not quite "royal".

Quote

Well, the Targaryens did that kind of thing, too, on occasion. It works. And it would have worked even better if Robert had marry a woman who also had Targaryen blood.

Except Robert wasn't basing his kingship off his Targaryen descent, necessarily.  That was a nice fiction to keep the realm from fracturing, but he keep the Baratheon name and just imperilled hundreds of thousands of people in order to get rid of a tyrannical Targaryen.  Why would he turn around and acclaim the legitimacy of that line by marrying a close Targaryen descendant?  

Quote

The reason Jon Arryn gives is that they wanted to be sure Tywin would be on their side should Viserys III attack. That's why Robert married Cersei.

Yes, except Tywin is on their side no matter what.  In his own words, once Elia and her kids die, Tywin is all in on the new Baratheon regime.  Even the Baratheon's themselves would fare better under a Targaryen restoration (well, maybe).  In any case, I'm guessing some of it was feudal politics and some of it was simple availability - maybe there is a Hightower or Tyrell sister lying around, but end of the day, those are loyalists and not to be rewarded, whereas Tywin is a lukewarm supporter who has a marriagable daughter.

Quote

The idea there would be that Robert extends his loving royal hands to the staunch supporters of the Targaryens. It could have helped to heal the rift in the Realm, to ensure the Reach would stand with Robert should Viserys III come back. Mace would then have played the same role as Tywin was supposed in Jon Arryn's mind. It could have worked. The Tyrells are very pragmatic.

But at the risk of alienating all his other allies!  And they do extend royal loving hands, to the Florents, a major vassal of Highgarden.  At the end of the day, marriages and offices are favors to be distributed with care, because they are of finite number.  Robert just watched his fiance get abducted, raped, and die due to the Crown Prince, and the King call for his head for no reason, and Mace Tyrell stood up and said "you know what, I support all that, I'm gonna fight for Aerys".  Why in the world would he turn around and give the most valuable thing in his possession, his own eligibility, to that guy?  It is absurd on its face and demonstrates a lack of understanding of how feudal politics are played.

[Lord of Raventree Hall]

20 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That is an interesting question. We don't know enough about Renly to answer it properly but I'd say Joffrey is not as relevant there than Cersei and Renly's relationship with her. They didn't get along. Had Renly and Robert's queen - whoever she might be - gotten along Renly could have become a strong ally of hers in the wake of Robert's death. But they did not.

We also don't know when exactly Renly decided he would be king. When Robert was dying? Or only after Ned rejected his offer and he felt the need to flee?

He could have intended to use Eddard Stark as tool to get Cersei and the children under their power and then arrange their deaths. Then he could deal with Ned and declare himself king. That would have been a dangerous game but if he had gotten many trusted Stormlanders into the city as quickly as possible it could have worked.

We don't really know. However, I think the fact that he didn't make any attempt to win Cersei's trust or offer her his help is quite telling.

Stannis was somewhat useful but he still is willing to kill Robert's widow and children over a mere suspicion of his. That is an ugly thing to do. And he is lying - perhaps even to himself - that he doesn't want the throne. He wants it very much to show the world that he can be a better king than Robert. Else he would have reached an understanding with Renly or had allowed Robert's children to take the throne. After all, nobody forces him to act upon his mere belief that Cersei's children are not Robert's.

And it is also very telling that he never makes an attempt to talk to Robert about the incest. He leaves to the mercy of Cersei Lannister, a woman he believes murdered Jon Arryn. It would have been his duty to Robert to tell him about his suspicions, both in relation to the twincest and the parentage of Robert's children but also in relation to the death of Jon Arryn. But he did nothing of that sort

He did not only betray Robert's children but also Robert himself. And that makes him a very dangerous man.

Oh, I meant the Tullys, Arryns, Starks, Stormlords, etc. by 'rebels' there. Robert's crucial mistake is that he didn't appoint competent men he could trust. Those could have been commoners just as much smaller or greater lords who had proven their loyalty.

Robert definitely gave Cersei too much (especially the squire thing proved deadly) but the idea of the marriage was not wrong. It would have great if it worked. Robert certainly would have needed Tywin's support in a coming war with Viserys III. 

But strictly speaking the government of the Realm was not in Lannister hands. Aside from Pycelle there were no Lannister men on the Small Council. The problem was that Robert allowed Cersei to surround his children with her own people, mostly Lannister cronies like the Hound and others. He should have taken his children under his own wing but he failed at that.

I agree with basically everything you said here, and I especially agree that you are right that Cersei may have more to do with Renly's rebellion than Joffrey, or perhaps the combination of the two of them. The one thing I still disagree with you on is the "rebel" lords. I think the government would have been 10 times better if your small council is Jon Arryn, Eddard Stark,  Tytos Blackwood (sorry but got to love the Blackwoods), Yohn Royce, and Stannis Baratheon (yeah, I'd still go with Stannis). Perhaps I can grant you that a commoner could do the job well, but Robert doesn't seem one who knew many commoners (besides prostitutes). I guess he is always acclaimed for winning loyalty. Why not use that skill to get the most competant lords from those areas that supported you as your small council.

Oh and I really don't understand Robert's treatment of Cersei. It goes beyond just laziness when your suppossed best friend and your own brother AND a father figure don't trust you enough to immediatly come to you with their suspitions. I mean it doesn't take that much effort to just appoint who you want or basically make Cersei Jon Arryn's problem and have him appoint everyone and tell Cersei to go to him with her "suggestions". 

[Lord Varys]

10 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

Actually, we have evidence that royal fleets have been sent out from Dragonstone before.  Whether that means it's totally based there, or partially, or only occasionally, it's clear that Dragonstone can be a base for the Royal Fleet.  And moreover, we just don't know enough to condemn Stannis for his actions.  The Hand of the King is given authority to act with the King's voice; it is well within the realm of possibility that the various other Small Councillors get similar authority, especially given Robert's attitude towards governance.  Similarly, Jon Arryn may have commanded him to keep the fleet out of Lannister hands.

I don't recall anything ever stating that Dragonstone was ever the basis of the royal fleet. Where are you getting this from? Traditionally the Velaryons were the Masters of Ship during the Targaryen reign with very few exceptions. Their seat is on Driftmark, not Dragonstone.

Only the King's Hand can speak with the King's Voice, not some other councilor. And we have no reason to assume Stannis got royal permission to take the royal fleet to Dragonstone. We do know Stannis left court in King Robert's absence. And we also do know that Stannis did not respond to a single letter sent to him by the new Hand, Lord Eddard Stark. In combination with the fact that Stannis closed Dragonstone's harbor, began fortifying it was beginning to recruit sellsails immediately after he arrived in his stronghold his intentions look very suspicious. Those are not the actions of a leal subject.

10 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

However, it is difficult to see how having the fleet in KL would have prevented events from occurring as in OTL.  It's VERY easy to see, however, how having them outside the city might help in keeping Cersei's illegitimate children from stealing the throne.

That has nothing to do with anything. Robert is the king. It is his fleet. Stannis has no right to take it without his leave. Only if he goes on some mission that his been approved by the king.

10 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

So?  Joffrey wasn't in Winterfell when Bran was attacked, either.  He's unearthing a conspiracy about the Queen committing incest with the her brother, who happens to be a noted Kingslayer, the son of one of the most powerful, ruthless men in the kingdom, and the finest swordsman alive to boot.  Of course he should be nervous.

But he actually isn't a nervous man. This is Stannis Baratheon, a man who is calm and happy and in control of things in the village we meet him in Theon 1. His people are freezing to death outside and the situation is dire by any possible standard but he isn't afraid. Why do you think such a man would be afraid to talk to his royal brother about something important? Or why do you think he would be afraid of mere woman like Cersei? He would laugh if you accuse him he ran away because he was fearing for his life. He left because Robert chose another Hand. That is why he doesn't like Ned, either.

10 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

Yes, but here's the issue: he's not worried about Cersei.  He's worried about Robert.  Best case scenario is Robert believes him, immediately executes his wife and "kids" and a civil war breaks out.  Worst case, Robert thinks Stannis is trying to usurp his son's place in the line of succession, and does something equally rash with regards to Stannis.  Imagine telling YOUR brother his wife was rearing three kids she conceived with her brother.  It's not exactly a conversation you have when you run into each other in the supermarket.

But that is irrelevant. It was his damned duty to tell Robert the truth. He had no right to invent excuses why he was not telling Robert the truth. That is treason. And it goes against his own standards. Stannis expect his people to tell him the truth, too, and he punishes them severely if they don't. Why should he as a servant to his king presume to have privileges he himself doesn't grant to his servants?

10 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

First off, asking him to remember every instance of intercourse for 15 years is a little much.  Second, Robert is hiding from his actions by excusing his drinking.  Yes, sometimes he remembers, but all Cersei has to say is "you hit me and then passed out" and Robert will probably retreat into the self-delusion that allows him to not be miserable, as he does every other time.  He should ALREADY know his kids are bastards if he was willing to even consider it; he only sleeps with Cersei on incredibly rare occasions, so if it hasn't already occurred to him, that argument won't do so now.

Robert himself complains about Joffrey in conversation with Ned and wonders how he could have made such a son. That is a very strong sign that the idea that Cersei could cuckold him simply didn't occur to him. If he it did he would have acted accordingly. Cersei herself is also very aware of that fact. The reason why nobody can tell the story to Robert is because Robert doesn't love her and most likely would believe such slanders. In addition, keep in mind that Renly and Loras honestly believed they could replace Cersei with Margaery despite the fact that Cersei had given Robert three healthy children. That would only have worked if they thought Robert could be motivated to set aside or even execute Cersei. Else the entire plan wouldn't have made any sense.

If Stannis or Jon Arryn had gotten around to lay out their case in front of Robert he would have listened. That is inevitable.

10 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

This is explicitly not true.  Joffrey's claim is dependent on Robert.  If Joffrey is not related to Robert, then he has no claim to the throne and thus any opposition to him in favor of Stannis is perfectly legal.  Ned should have told Robert, because Robert would believe it coming from Ned.

Again, Stannis has no proof that Cersei's children are not Robert's. The children born in a marriage - royal or not royal - are the children of the husband until proven otherwise. This is the case both in real life as well as in Westeros. King Robert acknowledged Cersei's children as his and made Joffrey the Heir Apparent of the Iron Throne. Only King Robert can sit in judgment over the queen and declare his own children bastards. Stannis cannot do that. All he can do is rebel - which he does - and that is treason.

Ned as Hand speaking with the King's Voice could also have ruled on the succession and the parentage of the royal children. But he, too, betrayed his king on the deathbed when he forged the king's last will to surreptitiously obtain the Regency. Robert only named Ned Lord Regent and Protector of the Realm because he thought his heir was Joffrey, still a boy in his minority. In that sense Ned's plan to get himself confirmed as Lord Regent and Protector in the name of Joffrey Baratheon to then use that power to hand the crown to Stannis is dishonest and insidious. The honest way would have been tell Robert about Cersei and his so-called children and have him make the decision whether to allow any of them to inherit the Crown or who of his brothers should get the throne in their stead.

10 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

This is where you are wrong.  That is not, and never has been, how feudalism works.  You acclaim a king, who makes certain promises to you in return for your loyalty and service.  That is why there are so many rituals surrounding giving of rings and such when the feudal contract is made, and why that contract is ceremonially renewed all the time.  If Rhaegar or Viserys had inherited, they also would have performed those ceremonies symbolizing their feudal relationship with their vassals.  Probably not every lord, but certainly the big names would do so, and feudal obligations and rights would flow up and down the chain.

That may be true in reality, but in Westeros it is quite clear that thrones and lordships usually remain in the hand of this or that noble line. That is why there are noble and royal lineages going back hundreds and thousands of years, many of those in an unbroken male line.

There were quite a few rebellions against tyrannical kings in the Targaryen history. Maegor the Cruel was overthrown but the new king was his nephew Jaehaerys I, nor Robar Baratheon or some other major rebel leader (like Daemon Velaryon, Lord Tully, or even Lord Lannister). Cregan Stark also took possession of KL after the death of Aegon II. He could have made himself king, too, over the dead bodies of the last Targaryen children. But he did not. That is what Robert and his rebels also should have done.

10 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

While I agree it was wrong, it wasn't actually the Baratheons who did it, and it isn't the Baratheons who are suffering.  Cersei and her kids aren't Baratheons, a fact that the entire realm now knows, FYI.  Robert and his dynasty are brought low because one very greedy man (Littlefinger) manipulated events.

You are overestimating the power and influence Littlefinger has. Robert wanted the Targaryens dead. All of them. And I made it clear that his sins are not that he personally killed Aerys II, Elia, Aegon, and Rhaenys but that he did not punish those murders. Cregan Stark wanted to kill Aegon II, too, but he had the grace and the standing to punish his murderers after the man was betrayed by his own men. This is what Robert should have done, too. Especially in relation to the innocent women and children, but also in relation to Jaime. He could have sent him to the Wall, just as Aegon V did with Bloodraven. The murder of Aenys Blackfyre was also a crime that had to be punished even if the Targaryen dynasty profited from it.

10 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

He's very good at appearing to make money.  All the many "profits" he generated were just loans from the Iron Bank.  I'm not arguing that Robert drove the realm into ruin, just that Littlefinger helped drive that car off the cliff.  His enormous wealth makes it clear he was skimming quite a bit off the top of the royal coffers.  If he's taking hundreds of thousands of dragons for himself... well, that is a meaingful portion of the Crown's debts.

Littlefinger is very likely embezzling from the Crown by having the Crown pay for offices which don't exist. That money is going to somebody else. However, it is also quite clear that Littlefinger is very good with money. He rose by merit. He greatly increased the tax and toll incomes in Gulltown when he overseeing things there which then resulted in him being called to court where he then eventually was made Master of Coin.

He is competent and useful. He isn't a fraud. And it is quite clear that his investments actually bring in revenue, most likely in equal parts for himself and the Crown.

10 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

Return the same guy as Grandmaester, most likely.  Look, you are viewing kingship as an absolute monarchy, when in reality it is not. Robert cannot do anything he pleases; he has obligations to his vassals.  And Pycelle helped him take Kings Landing, is supposedly a neutral party, and firing him pisses off the Citadel.  What possible reason could he have to dismiss him that is worth it?  Why alienate the hugely influential maesters if you don't have to?

There is no hint the maesters are 'hugely influential' as a collective at the Citadel. The kings allow them to elect the Grand Maester, that is not necessary a right they are entitled to. And we don't even know that Robert knows Pycelle helped Tywin to take KL. What we do know is that King Robert pardoned Varys, Jaime, and Pycelle just as he had pardoned Selmy before. That means he could have also not pardoned any of these men. And if Pycelle hadn't been pardoned he wouldn't have remained Grand Maester.

10 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

Excluding Maegor's wives, who IIRC he marries because he knows they are fertile, lets go through the rest.  The eventual Aegon V is only allowed to marry a Blackwood because he's so far down the line of succession.  Ditto Maekar, which takes out one of the Daynes.  I don't have time to go through the rest, but I thinking off the top of my head about reigning monarchs, only three have non-Paramount Lord or Targaryen spouses; Aegon V, Maekar, and Daeron II.  All of those were guys relatively far down the line of succession (e.g. not the heir or the "spare") when they married, meaning their nuptial choices had to be respectable but not quite "royal".

Baelor Breakspear, the Prince of Dragonstone, Heir Apparent to the Iron Throne, Hand of the King, and Lord Protector of the Realm was married to Jena Dondarrion when he died. He was the first in the line of succession, the eldest son and firstborn child of Daeron II. The Blackwoods should outrank the Dondarrions considering that the they are of ancient First Men royalty, having ruled the Riverlands back in the day. The Dondarrions were founded by some messenger. Prince Aegon's marriage to Lady Betha Blackwood would have caused a huge scandal if he had been an older son of Prince Maekar yet the Prince of Dragonstone's marriage to a Dondarrion did not? That makes little sense.

And Daeron II's second son, the future King Aerys I, was married to Aelinor Penrose. The Penroses may be an even more insignificant house than the Dondarrions (who at least are a prominent house of the Dornish Marches).

The explanation here most likely is that both Jena Dondarrion and Aelinor Penrose are Targaryen cousins through the female line (that is confirmed for Aelinor). Daeron II had no daughters or nieces and the closest female Targaryen relatives may actually have been scions of the Houses Dondarrion and Penrose (through some of those six Targaryen-Hightower daughters).

But the whole thing certainly set a precedent for a royal taking a bride from a very insignificant house. That means Robert could have done that, too.

10 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

Except Robert wasn't basing his kingship off his Targaryen descent, necessarily.  That was a nice fiction to keep the realm from fracturing, but he keep the Baratheon name and just imperilled hundreds of thousands of people in order to get rid of a tyrannical Targaryen.  Why would he turn around and acclaim the legitimacy of that line by marrying a close Targaryen descendant?

Because it is not a nice fiction. It is the reason why the other rebels allowed Robert to take the throne. Robert wasn't the man who began this rebellion. Jon Arryn was. And he and Ned and Hoster saved Robert's ass at Stony Sept. Robert had charisma and was a great general and he had the best blood claim. We know Robert declared himself king (or was declared king by the rebels) around the time of the Trident, most likely prior to the battle. We know Rhaegar knew cousin Robert wanted the throne, Aerys wants Robert to be a king of ashes, Jaime is aware that Robert wants the Iron Throne when he kills Aerys, etc. 

10 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

Yes, except Tywin is on their side no matter what.  In his own words, once Elia and her kids die, Tywin is all in on the new Baratheon regime.  Even the Baratheon's themselves would fare better under a Targaryen restoration (well, maybe).  In any case, I'm guessing some of it was feudal politics and some of it was simple availability - maybe there is a Hightower or Tyrell sister lying around, but end of the day, those are loyalists and not to be rewarded, whereas Tywin is a lukewarm supporter who has a marriagable daughter.

The reason Jon Arryn gives to Robert is that he has to marry Cersei to ensure Tywin is on his side. And while chances are good that Tywin wouldn't have declared for Viserys III if he had come back this isn't the same as Tywin fighting for Robert. He could had just done nothing again, choosing the winning side in the end.

10 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

But at the risk of alienating all his other allies!  And they do extend royal loving hands, to the Florents, a major vassal of Highgarden.  At the end of the day, marriages and offices are favors to be distributed with care, because they are of finite number.  Robert just watched his fiance get abducted, raped, and die due to the Crown Prince, and the King call for his head for no reason, and Mace Tyrell stood up and said "you know what, I support all that, I'm gonna fight for Aerys".  Why in the world would he turn around and give the most valuable thing in his possession, his own eligibility, to that guy?  It is absurd on its face and demonstrates a lack of understanding of how feudal politics are played.

This wouldn't have been a reward but rather an offer of reconciliation. The way to ensure the Targaryens remain in exile is to win the remaining loyalists to your side, not by continue to keep them at arm's length. That is why it was such a huge mistake not to punish Jaime, Tywin, Gregor, and Lorch. That is what ensured that Dorne and many other Targaryen loyalists in the Reach, the Riverlands, and elsewhere would neither forget nor forgive. They would bide their time and wait and declare for any Targaryen pretender who would step forth in the future. 

[cpg2016]

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I don't recall anything ever stating that Dragonstone was ever the basis of the royal fleet. Where are you getting this from? Traditionally the Velaryons were the Masters of Ship during the Targaryen reign with very few exceptions. Their seat is on Driftmark, not Dragonstone.

I'll find it.  It's in WOIAF.

Quote

Only the King's Hand can speak with the King's Voice, not some other councilor. And we have no reason to assume Stannis got royal permission to take the royal fleet to Dragonstone. We do know Stannis left court in King Robert's absence. And we also do know that Stannis did not respond to a single letter sent to him by the new Hand, Lord Eddard Stark. In combination with the fact that Stannis closed Dragonstone's harbor, began fortifying it was beginning to recruit sellsails immediately after he arrived in his stronghold his intentions look very suspicious. Those are not the actions of a leal subject.

My point is that it is possible that the Small Councillors have similar authority over their respective spheres.  Obviously the Master of Ships will have some leeway to execute maneuvers in support of an objective while on campaign.  Similarly, bringing the fleet to Dragonstone isn't absconding with it, or doing anything illegal, as I'm sure Stannis' job in the normal course of things is to protect the coast of Westeros and it's shipping.  Might he have an ulterior motive?  Sure, but again... not illegal.  We don't know enough about his responsibilities to make a judgement call, but we do know enough about Stannis to be pretty sure he wouldn't break the law or betray his brother.

Quote

Why do you think such a man would be afraid to talk to his royal brother about something important? Or why do you think he would be afraid of mere woman like Cersei? He would laugh if you accuse him he ran away because he was fearing for his life. He left because Robert chose another Hand. That is why he doesn't like Ned, either.

If you cannot see the difference between starting a potential civil war and being afraid of a woman, this argument is going nowhere.  He isn't afraid of Cersei, he's concerned about the consequences of his actions.  And for what it's worth, Robert hadn't chosen another Hand, because Ned hadn't accepted, and as we see IOTL, Ned is on the verge of not accepting it as it is!  ANd yes, he is envious of Ned because he is closer to Robert than Stannis is.

Quote

But that is irrelevant. It was his damned duty to tell Robert the truth. He had no right to invent excuses why he was not telling Robert the truth. That is treason. And it goes against his own standards. Stannis expect his people to tell him the truth, too, and he punishes them severely if they don't. Why should he as a servant to his king presume to have privileges he himself doesn't grant to his servants?

You go back and forth.  First you say Stannis has no proof (so there is no "truth") and then you say it is his job to bring every whisper he hears or thinks to Robert's attention (which is Varys' task).  First off, even if he knows, Stannis has no "duty" to tell the truth, the same as no one has a duty to tell their friend they are being cheated on.  If Robert had asked, Stannis would have told.  Stannis expects his people to obey, not offer up truths he doesn't need.  Alester Florent is burned alive because he takes the initiative in telling Stannis a hard truth without asking (that the war for the Iron Throne was lost).  Davos is rewarded because he speaks truth to power when asked!

You will never convince me that Stannis is obligated to tell Robert of his suspicions like it's just another day, it isn't part of any feudal obligation, and it's likely to get him killed or plunge the kingdom into civil war.  If he tells Robert in the wrong way, then he gets ignored, probably banished, and the whole exercise was useless.  Given the Lannister influence at court and Robert's personality, he's 100% right to be cautious in how he says something to Robert, especially given that the Hand was just murdered for those suspicions.

Quote

That may be true in reality, but in Westeros it is quite clear that thrones and lordships usually remain in the hand of this or that noble line. That is why there are noble and royal lineages going back hundreds and thousands of years, many of those in an unbroken male line.

We have few enough examples of how lordship in Westeros works, but the harvest feast scene in ACOK Bran III is good enough.  Bran is done fealty as the proxy Lord of Winterfell, and part of that deal is he agrees to help protect his vassals.  Presumably, distributing impartial justice is part of that as well.  In other words, it's a contract; I protect and succor you, and you obey and serve me.  Goes both ways.  If one party reneges, the deal is off, as it was for Aerys when it became clear he didn't respect the legal rights of his lords.

Quote

Cregan Stark also took possession of KL after the death of Aegon II. He could have made himself king, too, over the dead bodies of the last Targaryen children. But he did not. That is what Robert and his rebels also should have done.

We have absolutely no evidence that Cregan Stark could have done this.  He fought a war FOR a Targaryen claimant, not for a wronged party against the Targaryen dynasty.  Eddard and Robert and Jon Arryn were no longer bound by the feudal contract with the Targaryens when they rose up; Aerys' actions nullified it.  So they have no obligation to be loyal to his kids.  If Rhaegar had come out of seclusion, denounced his father, and taken up arms with the rebels, I have no doubt there would be a different outcome.  But at the end of the day, the rebels overthrew a Targaryen king and his heir (with good legal and ethical justification) - if they just put another of his kids on the throne, they open themselves up to all sorts of reprisals later on.

Again, this cannot be stressed enough; Robert and Ned, and really all of his vassals, had no obligation to Aerys or his kids.  Feudalism is a contract for a reason.  The First Blackfyre Rebellion involved a bunch of lords supporter a usurper who claimed to be from a different line than the main Targaryens (which is why he called himself Daemon Blackfyre and not Daemon Targaryen), so we have a precedent for a rebellion trying to elevate a non-"Targaryen".  The Dance was a civil war, not a rebellion.  So again, before we go any further, and in italics again for emphasis, Robert has no duty to Aerys' children, especially not after he is proclaimed king by the rebels, and it doesn't make any sense for him to do so anyway.  Should Twin have killed them?  No, put Viserys on the Wall and Dany in a septry.  But they have no divine right to rule, or anything like that.  Now that the dragons are gone, they rule with the consent of the governed.

Quote

He is competent and useful. He isn't a fraud. And it is quite clear that his investments actually bring in revenue, most likely in equal parts for himself and the Crown.

Oh no doubt he's a smart guy, and is already kickstarting the commercial revolution in Westeros in a way no one else is.  I just don't think those benefits are going anywhere near proportionally to his bosses.  Westerosi nobles disdain money and commercial operations, so they never think to look where the gold is coming from... which is Littlefinger borrowing it, and pocketing the income that should be paying it off.

Quote

There is no hint the maesters are 'hugely influential' as a collective at the Citadel. The kings allow them to elect the Grand Maester, that is not necessary a right they are entitled to. And we don't even know that Robert knows Pycelle helped Tywin to take KL. What we do know is that King Robert pardoned Varys, Jaime, and Pycelle just as he had pardoned Selmy before. That means he could have also not pardoned any of these men. And if Pycelle hadn't been pardoned he wouldn't have remained Grand Maester.

It is common knowledge that Pycelle counseled Aerys to open the gates to Tywin.

As for the maesters, there are plenty of hints, if you look.  "They read and write our letters, even for such lords as cannot read themselves, and who can say for a certainty that they are not twisting the words for their own ends... whenever we are weakest and most vulnerable, there they are.  Sometimes the heal us, and we are duly grateful.  When they fail, they console us in our grief, and we are grateful for that as well.... [we] make them privy to all our shame and secrets."

It's beyond question that the maesters are a massively influential order.  Having one is a great honor and sign of power.  They know all the secrets of their lords, are intimately involved in their counsels (apparently Rickard Stark gets involved with the Southron Ambitions bloc at the urging of his maester, and Wyman Manderly doesn't trust his maester because he may have residual Lannister loyalties).

And it is debatable what would have happened if Robert hadn't pardoned Pycelle.  Technically, the maester serves the castle and not the lord, so while he might have dismissed Pycelle, it's difficult to see how he could execute him for treason, seeing as he is technically a neutral party.  Which means, the Conclave can return him as Grandmaester.  Again, Pycelle is representative of a power bloc in Westeros, and the only one on the Small Council not personally responsible to Aerys (as opposed to the position of the king).  So there is more danger and potential discontent involved in not pardoning Pycelle than the foreign Varys, the Kingslaying Jaime, or Barristan who legit fought against him.  And knowing that the maesters will be in charge of you if you're sick or something, why piss them off?

Quote

We know Robert declared himself king (or was declared king by the rebels) around the time of the Trident, most likely prior to the battle. We know Rhaegar knew cousin Robert wanted the throne, Aerys wants Robert to be a king of ashes, Jaime is aware that Robert wants the Iron Throne when he kills Aerys, etc. 

Right.  So, Robert & Co rebel, fight a whole bunch of major battles and presumably minor skirmishes, and all the while, don't declare they are trying to unseat the Targaryens.  They only make that their aim once Rhaegar declares for Aerys!  This is incredibly important.  At first, their entire rebellion is about unseating a tyrant and ensuring their legal rights.  It only becomes what it does because the entire adult Targaryen line ends up defending the Mad King.  Robert wins the throne by right of conquest, and the blood issue is only raised in order to keep the realm from fracturing.  It is a fiction.  So no, Rhaegar doesn't know Robert wants the throne, because when he rides out Robert hasn't declared himself.

Quote

The reason Jon Arryn gives to Robert is that he has to marry Cersei to ensure Tywin is on his side. And while chances are good that Tywin wouldn't have declared for Viserys III if he had come back this isn't the same as Tywin fighting for Robert. He could had just done nothing again, choosing the winning side in the end.

Again, while I'm sure that played into Jon Arryn's reasons, Tywin cannot sit out another fight.  He can't.  He himself says that in killing Elia and her kids, he is forsaking the Targaryen cause forever.  Maybe he won't be a major partisan of Robert's, but he will never fight for a Targaryen again.  The text is beyond clear on this.

Robert marries Cersei because it brings the Lannisters into the fold and because there is no one else.  He is building a feudal coalition and a new dynasty, which means bringing in as many factions as possible while alienating as few as possible.  Rewarding the Tyrells or Martells is an insult to the Starks/Tully's/Arryns, and it makes FAR more sense for him to marry the eligible daughter of (arguably) the most powerful lord in the realm.  While it might conceivably have something to do with a Targaryen restoration, it almost certainly isn't the motivating factor.  If that was the concern, Jon Arryn would have had Viserys and Daenerys assassinated long before, but we know he was explicitly the one keeping Robert from doing so.  It's all about the internal coalition building, not aimed at preventing Viserys from returning, but from keeping the alienated lords from declaring independence from the crown.  Nothing else makes sense.

Quote

This wouldn't have been a reward but rather an offer of reconciliation. The way to ensure the Targaryens remain in exile is to win the remaining loyalists to your side, not by continue to keep them at arm's length. That is why it was such a huge mistake not to punish Jaime, Tywin, Gregor, and Lorch. That is what ensured that Dorne and many other Targaryen loyalists in the Reach, the Riverlands, and elsewhere would neither forget nor forgive. They would bide their time and wait and declare for any Targaryen pretender who would step forth in the future. 

Again, no.  The canon is clear that this isn't how feudal politics in Westeros works.  When Daeron II marries a Martell to bring Dorne into the realm, he basically starts the first Blackfyre Rebellion.  A royal marriage isn't used to conciliate, because it is a reward, one that promises massive power and influence to the family of the bride.  The Starks and Tullys and Arryns and (at the end) Lannisters all risked something to put Robert on the throne, whereas the Tyrells fought against him, and FOR a tyrant.  Mace Tyrell was basically saying "I think it was OK for Aerys to demand your head for no reason other than his insanity".  There isn't reconciliation with that.  He's already in the realm, he's not a rebel, he's a loyalist.  He needs to be contained, not reconciled, and this is exactly what happens IOTL with the Stannis/Selyse Florent marriage.  That is a warning shot to the Tyrells to stay in line, or they'll be displaced as Lords Paramount of the Reach.

And I agree that it was a mistake not to punish Tywin and his ilk.  But the problem is, if you punish them, then you are looking at the full power of Highgarden and Casterly Rock, which together we estimate makes up about 50% of the manpower and vastly more than that in terms of the wealth, of the Seven Kingdoms.  And mind you, these are untouched forces, whereas the rebel armies have been fighting for a while and are probably significantly under strength.  So again, Robert can either reward Tywin and bring him into the fold to craft a truly unstoppable coalition, or slight him and drive him into creating an opposing faction which might push for independence.

So yeah... there is a ton of logic and evidence behind the idea that the Cersei marriage was to preserve internal stability and not to preserve a Targaryen restoration.  Doing that would be MUCH easier; there are only two extant Targaryens, everyone knows where they are, and they're kids.

[Lion of the West]

On 2017-06-14 at 1:25 AM, Lord Varys said:

I'd actually extend that whole thing to other (noble) families, too. We learn that the Freys can trust their full siblings up to a point whereas the half-siblings are more often pretty much enemies. Children from different mothers (or fathers) are very often simply not all that close because of the age gap that might be involved. 

Yes, the Freys are an excellent suggestion on how different kinship groups, drawing their descent from a common mother, would interact with each other. I suppose that in many ways House Frey is a good study group, even if a twisted on, in kinship within Westeros
 nobility. Age differences could naturally have been an issue. Its a shame in some regards that Daeron the Daring was fostered in Oldtown, given how he was of age with Rhaenyra's first three sons. That could have told us some to which degree age difference prevents bounding. Not to mention what kind of relations that Rhaenyra's first three sons would have had with her last two, if they all lived to adult age. But such things we'll probably never get the answer to.

Although I suppose that perhaps we'll get some hints regarding this in the fabled "The She-wolves of Winterfell" where we might get to see more of how different kinship groups within a single House will interact with each other.

Quote

In addition the whole kinslayer taboo is very strong in Westeros, especially among full siblings but not only there. Just look how Balon exiled Euron instead of allowing Victarion to kill him. Only verybad apples went as low as to actually kill a helpless full sibling in Westeros. This kind of thing we have only with Stannis and Euron.

Yes, I agree with that. You have to be in really desperate situation, or rotten to the core, to be a kinslayer to a full sibling.

Quote

I don't think Renly would have personally slain Stannis but he would have looked the other way after Stannis forced him to at Storm's End. And I don't think Tyrion or Jaime are going to kill each other. Something will stay their hands. But either of them might be driven to kill Cersei if she crosses too many lines. But it is very difficult to imagine what the final line would have to be.

To start with I agree that personally Renly would not kill Stannis, but he did make arrangements for Stannis to die at Storm's End. What would have happened if Stannis was taken alive is anybody's guess but since I think that Renly was ready to kill Joffrey, Myrcella and Tommen in the understanding that they were Robert's trueborn children, I think that he would have arranged for Stannis to die in an "escape attempt" or that he really didn't yiield but fought bravely to the end.

In regards to Tywin's brood I think that Joanna's death kind of broke that kinship group. Jaime and Cersei lived with Joanna as their mother for several years which would, according to the model that the mother is the center in a kinship group, mean that Jaime and Cersei has a very strong bond which isn't nearly as strong with Tyrion, as can be seen by Cersei's mistreatment of his youngest brother. In regards to kill each other, I can see Tyrion kill Jamie or Cersei, but I can't see Jamie kill Tyrion.

But then again I have my fan theory that Tyrion will betray Daenaerys for the sake of his love for Jamie. But maybe that's just me.

Quote

Well, he was still a young man, the Realm needed a queen, and he was in love with a woman from a very prestigious and rich family. It could have worked.

I am actually not sure the realm needed a queen. It seems that Rhaenyra was essentially taking over many such functions and Viserys should have realized, if he was a wise king, the problems that would come from children with a second wife when he had already made Rhaenyra his heir. And children could reasonably be expected from a new union. But like I said, a man can be both wise and a fool at different times.

Quote

As a son of the Conqueror and half-brother to the king he could have set aside any other wife but Ceryse Hightower. That is the important point here. Ceryse Hightower basically is Catherine of Aragon. This is a marriage Maegor cannot hope to annul because of who she and her family members are. That is why he takes a second wife.

If Maegor had married a Lannister, Arryn, Stark, Baratheon, Tyrell, etc. he would have gotten his annulment or the permission of the Faith and the king to set her aside and take another wife.

I think that you are right in that it probably would have been possible to set it aside, but I don't think it's a given. To my reading Maegor taking a second wife is a part but not the only part which causes the Faith to rebel, and setting aside a daughter from a Great Houses would have provided a Great House with a grudge against Maegor. I'm not sure that's really much of an improvement.

Quote

But treating Ceryse in this manner was not just an insult to a powerful family, it was an insult to the High Septon himself. That was too much. If the Conqueror had tried to pull something like that the reaction would have been the same. It was the humiliation of Ceryse, House Hightower, the High Septon, and the ways and scriptures of the Faith that came with the whole thing.

True it was an important part of the it.

Quote

Those are exactly Aegon's reasons as Gyldayn gives them in TSotD. And it sure as hell could have been a very successful marriage. If Ceryse had given Maegor the sons he wanted (or if he had been able to impregnate her) Maegor would not only have had the support of House Hightower but also the Faith. It is not hard to imagine who would have succeeded the Conqueror in such a scenario - Maegor, and not Aenys. The High Septon and Visenya would have declared Aenys a weakling and bastard, unfit to rule, and they would have crowned Maegor instead. Aenys' girls could have been married to Maegor's sons (or not) to heal the rift. Or they would have found other means to neutralize those problems. The sons were still very young when the Conqueror died.

Yeah, pretty much so.

Quote

What I mean by this explosion that the Realm is literally exploding. There are different agendas in literally all of the Seven Kingdoms. The Dance and the Blackfyre Rebellions involved clear fronts. Two pretenders and their families against each other. The lords vied for influence and power behind the scenes but nobody played the secessionist card or tried to carve out his own kingdom. No Targaryen king ever faced rebellions from literally the entire royal family and most of the great houses of the Realm. Joffrey essentially just as the Lannisters and the mainland Crownlands at the beginning of his reign. Every other region is either against him (North, Riverlands, Stormlands, Reach, Iron Islands) or not for him (Vale, Dorne). And his administration doesn't even care about that difference. The Arryns and Martells are added to the list of the confirmed traitors despite the fact that they actually never rose against the Iron Throne.

I don't think this is actually true. You seem to block out many details about the Dance for example, of which we know the most, and which to our knowledge was more messy than the Blackfyre Rebellion.

To start with Joffrey didn't face rebellion from the whole royal House. He faced rebellion from two uncles, just like Prince Aegon, son of King Aenys, faced an uncle and a great-aunt, Joffrey had Robert's three "children" with him and so itr was at best half the royal House which rebelled. And to that Renly died before he could do anything more meaningful than get the Reach and Stormland forces into position. That makes is so that there are three Baratheon factions, which rather quickly is cut down (pun intended) to two, just like the Dance and the Blackfyre Rebellion. As such the internal Baratheon part of the war isn't really more special than either Dance or Blackfyre.

But as a side note, I do think that you are wrong in that no Targaryen king ever faced so much opposition. Have you forgotten about Maegor and his end? Maegor ended up in an even worse position than what Joffrey started in, including the rest of the royal family rebelling against him.

Then comes the seccessionists. I do recall that Dalton Greyjoy didn't care much for the order to stand down after the end of the war and I doubt that either Rhaenyra or Aegon II would have been able to make him release his personal paradise with words alone. But its true that Dalton never formally crowned himself, he just raided the realm and didn't give a crap about what word came from the capital. Which makes him a rebel and I somehow doubt that he was planning on sweetly following Rhaenyra's lead and start obeying her if she had ended victorious.

On the matter of Great Houses you are right in that it was as formidable as fragile a force arranged against him. The speed with which the Dornish do nothing, the Tyrells switch sides and the Greyjoys goes for the Starks, shows me that while many have loyalty issues, not all of them are driven by some kind of anti-Baratheon agenda. In fact both Tyrell and Greyjoy are rather happy to see a Baratheon sit the Iron Throne.

Quote

That has nothing to do with the situation at hand at the time of Robert's death. His rule was so weak that not only his two brothers and his eldest son claimed the throne but two great lords crowned themselves, too, and another great house also seceded.

This was never a question of weak rule though. If Robert's rule was weak the Greyjoys would have succeeded and the Begger King wouldbe on his throne. Robert's problem was his mismanagement of affairs coming from his irresponsible avoidance of non-violent conflicts and inability to deal with boredom. This essentially boils down to that Robert was afraid of conflicts which didn't involve hammering someone into the ground with his warhammer.

Quote

If Euron and the Targaryens weren't out there there would be a small chance that the Iron Throne could eventually restore order under this or that Baratheon. I think Tywin could have done it. But in light of the new forces and players in Westeros itself - Stannis and the Boltons, Littlefinger, the new High Septon and the Faith Militant, Euron, Tyrell ambition, and the rebels in the Riverlands - it is very unlikely that anybody ruling in the name of King Tommen could do it even if there were no outside threats.

If Euron and the Targaryens were not out there the war would effectively be over. Renly is undone, Stannis has fled to the end of the realm to hide in the snow and die of cold and there would be no rallying points to gather against King Tommen. Only a matter of rooting out die-hard rebels, bandits and broken men, while the main activity would be courtly intrigue between Lannister and Tyrell, and their respective lackeys and hang-arounds, and then arranging things with the Faith to support Tommen.

It would not take Bloodraven or Tywin to solve things for King Tommen. It would rather take a Cersei to mess things up.

[Jaak]

18 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

This is where you are wrong.  That is not, and never has been, how feudalism works.  You acclaim a king, who makes certain promises to you in return for your loyalty and service.  

Wrong. This has very often been how feudalism works.

In practice, feudal monarchs, like other rulers, have had to consider the ruled and avoid pissing off too many influential people.

In theory, the ideology of "absolute" monarchy was widespread. The extent to which lip service was paid on reciprocal obligations of ruler varied widely from kingdom to kingdom, period to period.

England had Magna Carta since 1215. Scotland has no Magna Carta. And neither has France.

18 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

He's very good at appearing to make money.  All the many "profits" he generated were just loans from the Iron Bank.  

Pretty absurd. Iron Bank would not lend without assurance that they have king´s approval. Littlefinger freely quotes the sum of Crown debt. No doubt Jon would have asked for details at previous, offscreen meetings, and Petyr would have provided them.

 

[Sigella]

On 2017-06-13 at 0:50 AM, Angel Eyes said:

So to divert into Targaryen progeny, how do the stillborn human-dragon hybrids come about? They seem to happen at random, with inbreeding (Aerys and Rhaella) and even with outbreeding (Maegor and the non-Targaryen Black Brides). 

So what causes these? Was Maegor's seed weak? Or do these things just happen?

Probably a side-effect from the blood magic that gave them special abilities. The symbolism is quite obvious - human/dragon hybrids... 

[Angel Eyes]

 

2 hours ago, Sigella said:

Probably a side-effect from the blood magic that gave them special abilities. The symbolism is quite obvious - human/dragon hybrids... 

And these hybrids don't work very well. 

Spoiler

Just ask Rhaego.

 

[Lord Varys]

6 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

I'll find it.  It's in WOIAF.

You can look for it but I'm pretty sure it isn't there.

6 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

My point is that it is possible that the Small Councillors have similar authority over their respective spheres.  Obviously the Master of Ships will have some leeway to execute maneuvers in support of an objective while on campaign.  Similarly, bringing the fleet to Dragonstone isn't absconding with it, or doing anything illegal, as I'm sure Stannis' job in the normal course of things is to protect the coast of Westeros and it's shipping.  Might he have an ulterior motive?  Sure, but again... not illegal.  We don't know enough about his responsibilities to make a judgement call, but we do know enough about Stannis to be pretty sure he wouldn't break the law or betray his brother.

That is the thing, we do not know that. His behavior is very odd. He was on no extended mission as far as we know. He just sat on Dragonstone with a lot of ships and sailors, apparently doing nothing. If he was on no mission his place as the Master of Ships is at the court in the Small Council, no?

And no, we don't know Stannis' mind well enough to know that he wouldn't break the law (he did, when he supported Robert over Aerys II) and if he can betray one king he can betray another, too.

6 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

If you cannot see the difference between starting a potential civil war and being afraid of a woman, this argument is going nowhere. He isn't afraid of Cersei, he's concerned about the consequences of his actions.  And for what it's worth, Robert hadn't chosen another Hand, because Ned hadn't accepted, and as we see IOTL, Ned is on the verge of not accepting it as it is!  ANd yes, he is envious of Ned because he is closer to Robert than Stannis is.

Robert had chosen another Hand. Ned had as of yet no accepted but Robert had made his decision who his next was supposed to be. And it was not Stannis. And then Stannis apparently acted like a child, just as Prince Maekar did when Aerys I named Bloodraven his Hand, not Maekar. He left court and sulked at his own seat. But the difference is that Stannis took the bulk of the royal fleet.

And again, the consequences don't matter. It was Stannis' duty to inform Robert about his suspicions about Jaime and Cersei and the death of Jon Arryn. But he did nothing of this sort. At best this wasn't helpful. But I call it treason by omission.

6 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

You go back and forth.  First you say Stannis has no proof (so there is no "truth") and then you say it is his job to bring every whisper he hears or thinks to Robert's attention (which is Varys' task).  First off, even if he knows, Stannis has no "duty" to tell the truth, the same as no one has a duty to tell their friend they are being cheated on.  If Robert had asked, Stannis would have told.  Stannis expects his people to obey, not offer up truths he doesn't need.  Alester Florent is burned alive because he takes the initiative in telling Stannis a hard truth without asking (that the war for the Iron Throne was lost).  Davos is rewarded because he speaks truth to power when asked!

 

Well, let's look at events in detail:

1. Stannis has suspicions about the royal children. He thinks they might not be Robert's seed so technically they would be Lannister bastards with no claim to the Iron Throne.

2. He goes to Jon Arryn to investigate this because he fears Robert might not believe him if the news came from him, his younger brother, who would greatly profit from this development.

3. Jon Arryn suddenly dies before they can talk to Robert about this. This confirms for Stannis more or less that he was right.

4. When Robert decides to name Ned his new Hand Stannis leaves court and does nothing to help either Robert or Ned. He gathers his forces and waits until Robert is dead. Then he makes a move to take the Iron Throne, intending to kill his sister-in-law and her children in the process.

Now, what is wrong with that? Wrong is the fact that Stannis Baratheon has no proof for his claims that Cersei's children are not, in fact, Robert's. The only person to sit in judgment over Cersei Lannister and to rule on the legitimacy of the royal children was King Robert. Who never could do this because Stannis didn't tell. That means that Stannis should actually have continued to remain as silent as he was after Jon Arryn died. He has no right to challenge the claim of his nephew Joffrey who was acknowledged as a Baratheon by King Robert, named Heir Apparent and Crown Prince by King Robert, and named as his successor in King Robert's last will (the real last will Robert actually dictated, not the forged last will Ned wrote down).

If you are trying to say Stannis can do whatever the hell he wants just because that is opinion or belief you are wrong. This is a society and there are rules. If a child is born in wedlock it is the child of the husband until this is proven false. And the heir of a king is the heir of a king. You don't have the right to interfere with that just because you are the brother of the king.

Just as your brother doesn't have the right to disown your children upon your death just on the basis that they don't look enough like you and he can thus not been sure that they are actually your biological children.

Stannis could be wrong in his assessment of the facts. Just as he is very wrong in his judgment who murdered Jon Arryn. But he doesn't care. He has made up his mind and he would kill Cersei's children even if they actually were Robert's children because he believes they are not.

6 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

You will never convince me that Stannis is obligated to tell Robert of his suspicions like it's just another day, it isn't part of any feudal obligation, and it's likely to get him killed or plunge the kingdom into civil war.  If he tells Robert in the wrong way, then he gets ignored, probably banished, and the whole exercise was useless.  Given the Lannister influence at court and Robert's personality, he's 100% right to be cautious in how he says something to Robert, especially given that the Hand was just murdered for those suspicions.

If it is not Stannis obligation as a brother, councilor, and leal subject to tell his king that his wife is cuckolding him with her own twin brother and that his children aren't actually his children then I don't know what an obligation to your king actually is. What do you think the king's page or squire should do if he found the members of the royal family committing adultery? Looking the other way?

We know Ser Arryk Cargyll found Princess Rhaenyra and Prince Daemon abed together, committing adultery. He told his king. Why do you think Stannis should not?

6 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

We have few enough examples of how lordship in Westeros works, but the harvest feast scene in ACOK Bran III is good enough.  Bran is done fealty as the proxy Lord of Winterfell, and part of that deal is he agrees to help protect his vassals.  Presumably, distributing impartial justice is part of that as well.  In other words, it's a contract; I protect and succor you, and you obey and serve me.  Goes both ways.  If one party reneges, the deal is off, as it was for Aerys when it became clear he didn't respect the legal rights of his lords.

We have no such thing for the Iron Throne and George recently stated that the Targaryens established an absolute monarchy. His words, not mine. There are no institutions of the lords or commons in the Realm, the only legal bodies of authority are the king's small council, his government and court, along with what meager bureaucracy they have across the Realm. The lords all hold land in the name of the king. They don't have the right to assemble and advise him collectively on a parliament or something like that. Great Councils are called by and presided over by the king or the Hand, and there were only three of those (as far as we know) in the history of the Targaryen reign.

I still agree that lords and even commons have the right to rebel against a tyrant, false king, mad king, etc. There are hints in that direction. But this doesn't mean that gives those rebels the right to overthrow the entire dynasty.

6 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

We have absolutely no evidence that Cregan Stark could have done this.  He fought a war FOR a Targaryen claimant, not for a wronged party against the Targaryen dynasty.  Eddard and Robert and Jon Arryn were no longer bound by the feudal contract with the Targaryens when they rose up; Aerys' actions nullified it.  So they have no obligation to be loyal to his kids.  If Rhaegar had come out of seclusion, denounced his father, and taken up arms with the rebels, I have no doubt there would be a different outcome.  But at the end of the day, the rebels overthrew a Targaryen king and his heir (with good legal and ethical justification) - if they just put another of his kids on the throne, they open themselves up to all sorts of reprisals later on.

That is not what Robb believed, though. He thinks he has a right to fight against Joffrey but no right to dethrone, oust, or overthrow Tommen. He considers him Joffrey's rightful heir and as such the rightful king after Joffrey is overthrown.

The idea that one bad apple can undermine the claim of an entire dynasty just doesn't make a lot of sense in this world. Then no noble house nor any petty king dynasty of old would have survived for even a century.

6 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

Again, this cannot be stressed enough; Robert and Ned, and really all of his vassals, had no obligation to Aerys or his kids.  Feudalism is a contract for a reason.  The First Blackfyre Rebellion involved a bunch of lords supporter a usurper who claimed to be from a different line than the main Targaryens (which is why he called himself Daemon Blackfyre and not Daemon Targaryen), so we have a precedent for a rebellion trying to elevate a non-"Targaryen".  The Dance was a civil war, not a rebellion.  So again, before we go any further, and in italics again for emphasis, Robert has no duty to Aerys' children, especially not after he is proclaimed king by the rebels, and it doesn't make any sense for him to do so anyway.  Should Twin have killed them?  No, put Viserys on the Wall and Dany in a septry.  But they have no divine right to rule, or anything like that.  Now that the dragons are gone, they rule with the consent of the governed.

Daemon Blackfyre may have not called himself 'Targaryen' but he was a Targaryen. Just as all the other legitimized bastards were. The Blackfyres are just a junior branch of House Targaryen that likes to bear another name.

6 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

Oh no doubt he's a smart guy, and is already kickstarting the commercial revolution in Westeros in a way no one else is.  I just don't think those benefits are going anywhere near proportionally to his bosses.  Westerosi nobles disdain money and commercial operations, so they never think to look where the gold is coming from... which is Littlefinger borrowing it, and pocketing the income that should be paying it off.

But Robert is also spending a lot of money, no? He couldn't do that if Littlefinger didn't give him a lot of money to spend. In fact, if he sucked at his job he would be fired at once.

6 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

It is common knowledge that Pycelle counseled Aerys to open the gates to Tywin.

It is known in certain circles but why do you think this proves Pycelle was a traitor to Aerys? Perhaps he honestly believed Tywin had come to help Aerys? Pycelle later confesses to Tyrion that this wasn't the case but we have no reason to believe that anybody believed that when Robert pardoned Pycelle shortly after the Sack.

6 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

As for the maesters, there are plenty of hints, if you look.  "They read and write our letters, even for such lords as cannot read themselves, and who can say for a certainty that they are not twisting the words for their own ends... whenever we are weakest and most vulnerable, there they are.  Sometimes the heal us, and we are duly grateful.  When they fail, they console us in our grief, and we are grateful for that as well.... [we] make them privy to all our shame and secrets."

It's beyond question that the maesters are a massively influential order.  Having one is a great honor and sign of power.  They know all the secrets of their lords, are intimately involved in their counsels (apparently Rickard Stark gets involved with the Southron Ambitions bloc at the urging of his maester, and Wyman Manderly doesn't trust his maester because he may have residual Lannister loyalties).

There is no southron ambitions bloc, Rickard Stark himself had southron ambitions. He wanted to marry his children into noble families from the South.

I don't doubt that the maesters are influential individually and even as a collective. But they have no armies. If a Grand Maester displeases his king they can't force him to keep him against the king's will. We see this when Tyrion throws Pycelle into the black cells and refuses to allow him in the Small Council after he frees him again. The Citadel does nothing about that. As far as we know they never even formally protested.

6 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

And it is debatable what would have happened if Robert hadn't pardoned Pycelle.  Technically, the maester serves the castle and not the lord, so while he might have dismissed Pycelle, it's difficult to see how he could execute him for treason, seeing as he is technically a neutral party.  Which means, the Conclave can return him as Grandmaester.  Again, Pycelle is representative of a power bloc in Westeros, and the only one on the Small Council not personally responsible to Aerys (as opposed to the position of the king).  So there is more danger and potential discontent involved in not pardoning Pycelle than the foreign Varys, the Kingslaying Jaime, or Barristan who legit fought against him.  And knowing that the maesters will be in charge of you if you're sick or something, why piss them off?

I'm pretty sure the Grand Maester is personally responsible to the king. But even if he wasn't there is more than enough evidence that kings can rid themselves of Grand Maesters by executing them as quite a few kings did. Now, a Grand Maester threatened by that might just as well have resigned voluntarily instead of losing his head.

6 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

Right.  So, Robert & Co rebel, fight a whole bunch of major battles and presumably minor skirmishes, and all the while, don't declare they are trying to unseat the Targaryens.  They only make that their aim once Rhaegar declares for Aerys!  This is incredibly important.  At first, their entire rebellion is about unseating a tyrant and ensuring their legal rights.  It only becomes what it does because the entire adult Targaryen line ends up defending the Mad King.  Robert wins the throne by right of conquest, and the blood issue is only raised in order to keep the realm from fracturing.  It is a fiction.  So no, Rhaegar doesn't know Robert wants the throne, because when he rides out Robert hasn't declared himself.

We know Robert declared himself around the time of the Trident. It seems as if Rhaegar already knew what he was about when he had his last conversation with Jaime.

6 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

Again, while I'm sure that played into Jon Arryn's reasons, Tywin cannot sit out another fight.  He can't.  He himself says that in killing Elia and her kids, he is forsaking the Targaryen cause forever.  Maybe he won't be a major partisan of Robert's, but he will never fight for a Targaryen again.  The text is beyond clear on this.

He says that but Jon Arryn still thought that Robert had to marry Cersei to be sure that Tywin was his man. That is in the text. 

6 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

Robert marries Cersei because it brings the Lannisters into the fold and because there is no one else. 

No, Robert actually tells us that he had no inclination to marry anyone after Lyanna's death and only married Cersei because Jon insisted. Those are the fact. If nobody had insisted Robert might have married no one for a couple of years until he felt inclined to pick one, and he certainly would have found one.

6 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

Again, no.  The canon is clear that this isn't how feudal politics in Westeros works.  When Daeron II marries a Martell to bring Dorne into the realm, he basically starts the first Blackfyre Rebellion.

That is wrong. Daemon Blackfyre started the Blackfyre rebellion. Daeron II married Mariah Martell during the reign of Baelor the Blessed. That marriage had nothing to do with the Blackfyre thing. The later marriage between Prince Maron and Princess Daenerys played a role as did the union between Sunspear and the Iron Throne that was sealed by that marriage.

6 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

 A royal marriage isn't used to conciliate, because it is a reward, one that promises massive power and influence to the family of the bride.  The Starks and Tullys and Arryns and (at the end) Lannisters all risked something to put Robert on the throne, whereas the Tyrells fought against him, and FOR a tyrant.  Mace Tyrell was basically saying "I think it was OK for Aerys to demand your head for no reason other than his insanity".  There isn't reconciliation with that.  He's already in the realm, he's not a rebel, he's a loyalist.  He needs to be contained, not reconciled, and this is exactly what happens IOTL with the Stannis/Selyse Florent marriage.  That is a warning shot to the Tyrells to stay in line, or they'll be displaced as Lords Paramount of the Reach.

That is also not really true. Queen Rhaenys arranged a lot of marriages to conciliate the lords of the Realm, and Aegon the Conqueror married his son Prince Maegor to Ceryse Hightower to placate the High Septon. That wasn't a reward but rather a bribe. And there are other such marriages or promises for such marriages. Princess Rhaelle marrying Ormund Baratheon, Cregan Stark getting the promise of a Targaryen marriage, Prince Aemond promising to marry a daughter of Borros Baratheon, etc.

The fact that Tyrells and the Lannisters both are as powerful as they are is a reason why it would have been wise of Robert to keep them close. He did that with Tywin but he could just as well have done it with Mace.

5 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

Age differences could naturally have been an issue. Its a shame in some regards that Daeron the Daring was fostered in Oldtown, given how he was of age with Rhaenyra's first three sons. That could have told us some to which degree age difference prevents bounding. Not to mention what kind of relations that Rhaenyra's first three sons would have had with her last two, if they all lived to adult age. But such things we'll probably never get the answer to.

They seemed to have tried (Daeron and Jace apparently had the same wetwurse) but Alicent had already poisoned her other children against Rhaenyra. It is said that Aegon and Rhaenyra didn't get along when he was six and she sixteen. It makes sense for them to have little in common considering the different gender and the age gap, but a six-year-old boy is not all that likely to dislike his sister who is ten years older unless an adult is involved somehow. Could have been Alicent, Otto, one of his Hightower uncles, etc.

But things could have still worked out. If Rhaenyra had had daughters instead of sons they could have wed Aegon and Aemond, and then they could have made those pairs Rhaenyra's heirs, reuniting the lines without any difficulty and actually making them all a big family again. Alicent and Otto should have had no trouble to wait a little while longer for the Iron Throne.

5 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

Although I suppose that perhaps we'll get some hints regarding this in the fabled "The She-wolves of Winterfell" where we might get to see more of how different kinship groups within a single House will interact with each other.

Yeah, that could be very interesting.

5 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

To start with I agree that personally Renly would not kill Stannis, but he did make arrangements for Stannis to die at Storm's End. What would have happened if Stannis was taken alive is anybody's guess but since I think that Renly was ready to kill Joffrey, Myrcella and Tommen in the understanding that they were Robert's trueborn children, I think that he would have arranged for Stannis to die in an "escape attempt" or that he really didn't yiield but fought bravely to the end.

Well, perhaps he would have tried to spare the lives of the younger children. Joff would most likely have to go considering that he had been crowned (and was a prick). And Stannis, well, it would have depended how the battle had gone and whether Stannis was captured alive. One assumes that Renly would have talked to him one last time before making up his mind.

5 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

In regards to Tywin's brood I think that Joanna's death kind of broke that kinship group. Jaime and Cersei lived with Joanna as their mother for several years which would, according to the model that the mother is the center in a kinship group, mean that Jaime and Cersei has a very strong bond which isn't nearly as strong with Tyrion, as can be seen by Cersei's mistreatment of his youngest brother. In regards to kill each other, I can see Tyrion kill Jamie or Cersei, but I can't see Jamie kill Tyrion.

But then again I have my fan theory that Tyrion will betray Daenaerys for the sake of his love for Jamie. But maybe that's just me.

We'll have to wait and see. But I don't think Tyrion loves Jaime enough to betray anyone for him. But he might be pretty keen to spare his life he can. His hatred of his siblings will have cooled down considerably by the time he comes back to Westeros. Or at least that's what I expect.

5 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

I am actually not sure the realm needed a queen. It seems that Rhaenyra was essentially taking over many such functions and Viserys should have realized, if he was a wise king, the problems that would come from children with a second wife when he had already made Rhaenyra his heir. And children could reasonably be expected from a new union. But like I said, a man can be both wise and a fool at different times.

Rhaenyra was only nine years old by the time Viserys I married Alicent. She was a princess, not a queen. And one could argue that the Realm always needs a queen. 

5 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

I think that you are right in that it probably would have been possible to set it aside, but I don't think it's a given. To my reading Maegor taking a second wife is a part but not the only part which causes the Faith to rebel, and setting aside a daughter from a Great Houses would have provided a Great House with a grudge against Maegor. I'm not sure that's really much of an improvement.

Back then the great houses weren't really all that important a factor. Maegor taking a second wife without the permission of the king and the Faith is what begins the great rebellion against Aenys I and the Targaryens in general. But if we consider the power the Targaryens had at that time and the fact that kings had quite often set aside wives in the past and that marriages also can be annulled (and a barren wife might have been a pretext for an annulment) we can be pretty sure that Aenys I and the Faith would have accommodated Maegor if he had been married to any other woman.

It is very telling that his second wedding is a secret wedding, that he and Visenya don't even inform Aenys I and the world until after the fact. TSotD makes it very clear that Maegor didn't want a second wife in bigamist or polygamist way. He declared that Ceryse was barren and wanted a new wife who could give him sons. That was the whole point. Later he, Alys, and Tyanna apparently lived together in a menage à trois until Maegor also married Tyanna but that only happened after he was king.

5 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

To start with Joffrey didn't face rebellion from the whole royal House.

His younger siblings didn't rebel against him, I grant you that. But Stannis and Renly did. And they were the only members of the extended royal family around. The Lannisters are not part of it.

5 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

He faced rebellion from two uncles, just like Prince Aegon, son of King Aenys, faced an uncle and a great-aunt, Joffrey had Robert's three "children" with him and so itr was at best half the royal House which rebelled. And to that Renly died before he could do anything more meaningful than get the Reach and Stormland forces into position. That makes is so that there are three Baratheon factions, which rather quickly is cut down (pun intended) to two, just like the Dance and the Blackfyre Rebellion. As such the internal Baratheon part of the war isn't really more special than either Dance or Blackfyre.

But I don't care about the 'internal Baratheon part', I care about the entire War of the Five Kings and its present aftermath. The Realm wasn't as fractured as it is now since before the Conquest.

5 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

But as a side note, I do think that you are wrong in that no Targaryen king ever faced so much opposition. Have you forgotten about Maegor and his end? Maegor ended up in an even worse position than what Joffrey started in, including the rest of the royal family rebelling against him.

Maegor faced rebellions but those rebel movements apparently all (or perhaps only mostly all) united behind Jaehaerys I. This wasn't the same as the plotting and politicking that's going on in the series. There everybody has his or her own agenda whereas those earlier conflicts seem to have been pretty straightforward.

5 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

Then comes the seccessionists. I do recall that Dalton Greyjoy didn't care much for the order to stand down after the end of the war and I doubt that either Rhaenyra or Aegon II would have been able to make him release his personal paradise with words alone. But its true that Dalton never formally crowned himself, he just raided the realm and didn't give a crap about what word came from the capital. Which makes him a rebel and I somehow doubt that he was planning on sweetly following Rhaenyra's lead and start obeying her if she had ended victorious.

Dalton was just one guy. And he was put down during the Regency of Aegon III. He sure as hell would have behaved had Rhaenyra won and had had enough dragonriders left to pay him a visit. The fact that Dalton did no crown himself is exactly the point I'm trying to make. That is the difference.

5 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

On the matter of Great Houses you are right in that it was as formidable as fragile a force arranged against him. The speed with which the Dornish do nothing, the Tyrells switch sides and the Greyjoys goes for the Starks, shows me that while many have loyalty issues, not all of them are driven by some kind of anti-Baratheon agenda. In fact both Tyrell and Greyjoy are rather happy to see a Baratheon sit the Iron Throne.

Balon Greyjoy stole a huge chunk of the Realm in the Iron Islands themselves as well as in the North. He might have been happy with a weak child king on the Iron Throne but his actions were not to Joff's or Tommen's benefit.

5 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

This was never a question of weak rule though. If Robert's rule was weak the Greyjoys would have succeeded and the Begger King wouldbe on his throne. Robert's problem was his mismanagement of affairs coming from his irresponsible avoidance of non-violent conflicts and inability to deal with boredom. This essentially boils down to that Robert was afraid of conflicts which didn't involve hammering someone into the ground with his warhammer.

No, Robert's rule was weak. A strong king keeps his house in order just as well as his own realm. Robert did none of that. He should not have given such large lordships to his brothers, he shouldn't have pardoned Balon Greyjoy (in fact, he should have extinguished that house and burned the Iron Fleet), and he should have cared about the government of his kingdom.

No king in the history of Westeros gave his two brothers to means to rebel both against his young son.

5 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

If Euron and the Targaryens were not out there the war would effectively be over. Renly is undone, Stannis has fled to the end of the realm to hide in the snow and die of cold and there would be no rallying points to gather against King Tommen. Only a matter of rooting out die-hard rebels, bandits and broken men, while the main activity would be courtly intrigue between Lannister and Tyrell, and their respective lackeys and hang-arounds, and then arranging things with the Faith to support Tommen.

It seems to me that things are going to hell right now without any outside intervention. And if Stannis gets the chance to regroup people might end up joining him after all.

[Jaak]

7 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

We have few enough examples of how lordship in Westeros works, but the harvest feast scene in ACOK Bran III is good enough.  Bran is done fealty as the proxy Lord of Winterfell, and part of that deal is he agrees to help protect his vassals.  Presumably, distributing impartial justice is part of that as well.  In other words, it's a contract; I protect and succor you, and you obey and serve me.  Goes both ways.  If one party reneges, the deal is off, as it was for Aerys when it became clear he didn't respect the legal rights of his lords.

That´s not clear or universally agreed. Lordships commonly last millennia in Westeros. As of Conquest, Starks had ruled for 8000 years, Arryns 6000, Lannisters 6000+, Gardeners and Durrandons 8000+, Hoares 4000 years. Each of them must have had some of their hundreds of rulers making mistakes at times.

Therefore, a lot of subjects must have agreed with Robb that when a contract is broken, the aggrieved side may force redress of grievances... and is legally obliged to continue with the contract after achieving redress.

7 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

He fought a war FOR a Targaryen claimant, not for a wronged party against the Targaryen dynasty.  Eddard and Robert and Jon Arryn were no longer bound by the feudal contract with the Targaryens when they rose up; Aerys' actions nullified it.  So they have no obligation to be loyal to his kids.  

 As above, not agreed in Westeros.

7 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

If Rhaegar had come out of seclusion, denounced his father, and taken up arms with the rebels, I have no doubt there would be a different outcome.  But at the end of the day, the rebels overthrew a Targaryen king and his heir (with good legal and ethical justification) - if they just put another of his kids on the throne, they open themselves up to all sorts of reprisals later on.

That´s a practical consideration - but obviously in Westeros treated as of questionable legal or ethical justification.

7 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

Again, this cannot be stressed enough; Robert and Ned, and really all of his vassals, had no obligation to Aerys or his kids.  Feudalism is a contract for a reason.  So again, before we go any further, and in italics again for emphasis, Robert has no duty to Aerys' children, especially not after he is proclaimed king by the rebels,

Not universally agreed in Westeros. Proclaiming himself King is arguably breach of duty owed to Aerys´ children, and one which nullifies Robert´s entitlement to seek redress of his grievances.

7 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

and it doesn't make any sense for him to do so anyway.  Should Twin have killed them?  No, put Viserys on the Wall and Dany in a septry.  But they have no divine right to rule, or anything like that.  Now that the dragons are gone, they rule with the consent of the governed.

Starks, Lannisters, Arryns, Durrandons, Gardeners, Hoares never had dragons. The governed never replaced them - though individual kings certainly were sometimes replaced.

7 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

Right.  So, Robert & Co rebel, fight a whole bunch of major battles and presumably minor skirmishes, and all the while, don't declare they are trying to unseat the Targaryens.  They only make that their aim once Rhaegar declares for Aerys!  This is incredibly important.  At first, their entire rebellion is about unseating a tyrant and ensuring their legal rights.  It only becomes what it does because the entire adult Targaryen line ends up defending the Mad King.  Robert wins the throne by right of conquest, and the blood issue is only raised in order to keep the realm from fracturing.  It is a fiction.  So no, Rhaegar doesn't know Robert wants the throne, because when he rides out Robert hasn't declared himself.

We are never directly told when precisely Robert declared for crown. "Around the time of Trident" is all we have.

Might have been as soon as Rhaegaer emerged collecting armies, before he rode out. Might have been shortly before battle, for example in response to an offer of negotiations. Or might have been shortly after the battle was won and Rhaegaer dead.

7 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

The Starks and Tullys and Arryns and (at the end) Lannisters all risked something to put Robert on the throne, whereas the Tyrells fought against him, and FOR a tyrant.  Mace Tyrell was basically saying "I think it was OK for Aerys to demand your head for no reason other than his insanity".  There isn't reconciliation with that.  He's already in the realm, he's not a rebel, he's a loyalist.  He needs to be contained, not reconciled,

Yet Robert seeks reconciliation with Barristan Selmy. Who also obeyed his vows.

What Tyrells, Barristan and, e. g. Gerold Hightower are saying is "We are sworn to serve a King, not judge him. We did not rebel against Aerys just because his son defiled Lyanna. And once we are sworn to you as our King now, we will not rebel against you just because you defiled Delena, either.".

[Kaibaman]

Personally I don't think the inbreeding was only to prevent contamination into the Targaryen bloodline and weaken their special ability to hatch and tame dragons, but it was also to prevent other powerful houses from doing the same. A strong ruler needs to have a monopoly on violence and in the case of the Targaryens their power did not come from having a large army but possessing the only living WMDs in the world. If the Targs had constantly married outside of their house, they would essentially be giving away a slice of their power to their vassals rather than keeping it all to themselves. Lets just pretend if Aegon and his sisters had enough sons and daughters to marry into each of the noble houses and they did so after the conquest. Well ok in the short term the Targaryens would have created stronger ties with their overmighty vassals, but at the same time it also creates the danger of allowing those families to also gain their family's genetic abilities. For all we know the Starks, Baratheons, Lannisters, Arryns, Tyrells, Tullys and Greyjoys by marrying into the royal family would have descendants who will be able to hatch and train dragons of their own. And unless the Targs can somehow completely ensure the loyalties of the houses they marry for all time which is impossible (just look at how they fell out with the Baratheons), if there were ever conflicts between the Iron Throne and its vassal kingdoms then you know that those houses who now have their own dragons can easily challenge Targaryen rule, especially if they are able to ally with another kingdom who also have Targaryen descendants with their own corps of dragon riders. It was only in the most desperate of times like the Dance of Dragons when the Targs were willing to share this power with potential allies (eg, Starks). As for the Arryns I always saw their union as more of a means to an end. To me personally I think the the Mountains of the Moons would have made a good sanctuary for the dragons to live in and the Arryns might have been more willing to give their dragons kings those mountains and fill them with their family pets if their family too could get a slice of the action.

[Angel Eyes]

Well, imagine if you crossed a targaryen with a warg. I once found a WMG theory on TV Tropes that Bran was warging into Drogon during season 5.

[Jaak]

4 hours ago, Kaibaman said:

Personally I don't think the inbreeding was only to prevent contamination into the Targaryen bloodline and weaken their special ability to hatch and tame dragons, but it was also to prevent other powerful houses from doing the same. A strong ruler needs to have a monopoly on violence and in the case of the Targaryens their power did not come from having a large army but possessing the only living WMDs in the world. If the Targs had constantly married outside of their house, they would essentially be giving away a slice of their power to their vassals rather than keeping it all to themselves. Lets just pretend if Aegon and his sisters had enough sons and daughters to marry into each of the noble houses and they did so after the conquest. Well ok in the short term the Targaryens would have created stronger ties with their overmighty vassals, but at the same time it also creates the danger of allowing those families to also gain their family's genetic abilities. For all we know the Starks, Baratheons, Lannisters, Arryns, Tyrells, Tullys and Greyjoys by marrying into the royal family would have descendants who will be able to hatch and train dragons of their own.

Genetic ability of dragon bonding does not equal actually having a dragon to bond to.

Quote

And unless the Targs can somehow completely ensure the loyalties of the houses they marry for all time which is impossible (just look at how they fell out with the Baratheons), if there were ever conflicts between the Iron Throne and its vassal kingdoms then you know that those houses who now have their own dragons can easily challenge Targaryen rule, especially if they are able to ally with another kingdom who also have Targaryen descendants with their own corps of dragon riders. It was only in the most desperate of times like the Dance of Dragons when the Targs were willing to share this power with potential allies (eg, Starks). As for the Arryns I always saw their union as more of a means to an end. To me personally I think the the Mountains of the Moons would have made a good sanctuary for the dragons to live in and the Arryns might have been more willing to give their dragons kings those mountains and fill them with their family pets if their family too could get a slice of the action.

But we never hear of an actual Arryn dragon.

Aegon and his 2 sisters only had 2 sons between them, but Jaehaerys and Alysanne raised 9 children to adulthood. 3 sons, 6 daughters.

The result?

Only 1 of the sons tied up an available daughter... and that was Baelon/Alyssa. Setting up an obvious trouble... as the elder son and heir Aemon was outbred (to Jocelyn Baratheon) the little brother Baelon had purer issue, in position to challenge Aemon and his issue. Was Rhaenys´ non-Targaryen mother ever mentioned as grounds to disinherit her in favour of Baelon?

And the third son, Vaegon, was left Dragonless and packed off to Citadel, rather than marry him to, say, Maegelle. Who also was packed off to celibacy, in Faith.

Of the 5 daughters not married to Targaryens, 2 were or were to be married out (Daella was, Viserra was engaged), 2 packed off to Faith (Maegelle and Saera) and 1 left available (Gael).

It was a time of strength for Targaryens. And a pure chance that Daella and Viserra died having 1 daughter between them. By best laid plans of mice and men, there could have been a sizeable brood of Arryns and another of Manderlies fit to ride dragons if they got any.

And that was Targaryens´ time of strength.

[cpg2016]

21 hours ago, Jaak said:

Wrong. This has very often been how feudalism works.

In practice, feudal monarchs, like other rulers, have had to consider the ruled and avoid pissing off too many influential people.

No.  No no no no no.  This is wrong, you are wrong, and this is not a debate worth having.  Feudalism is about reciprocal obligations and duties of lord and vassal.  There was a concept that kingship was divinely ordained, but the theory of absolute monarchy was centuries away.  Absolutism and feudalism are two different political structures, full stop.  Louis XIV was not a feudal monarch.

Quote

 

In theory, the ideology of "absolute" monarchy was widespread. The extent to which lip service was paid on reciprocal obligations of ruler varied widely from kingdom to kingdom, period to period.

England had Magna Carta since 1215. Scotland has no Magna Carta. And neither has France.

 

You are of course correct that the authority of the King varied widely depending on the king, the country, and the time period.  But your point about the Magna Carta is foolish.  The Magna Carta just enshrined in writing a set of duties and obligations that previously existed. French kings were routinely elected by the nobility after the demise of the Carolingian dynasty with Charles the Simple's imprisonment.  Obviously the Holy Roman Emperors were elected by the most powerful magnates of the realm, even if in practice the Habsburgs came to increasingly dominate this process by the end of the medieval period.  As feudalism faded as a viable political system, kings began centralizing power in their own hands and the feudal relationship changed into proto-modern states.

So, to reiterate - when it was thought that kings were not fulfilling their duties to their vassals, the vassals deposed them and installed new kings.  Obviously politics and personal advancement played a huge rule in this as well and we shouldn't downplay the opportunism that played such a huge role in determining who took whose side, but at the end of the day it's clear that feudal political communities recognized that kingship was dependent on fulfillment of obligations.

For more info on this in ASOIAF, read Bran III, which is the harvest feast, where the obligations of the Starks to their vassals to protect and feed them during winter, especially, is made clear.  Meera and Jojen's affirmation of loyalty and service in return for justice and mercy is indicative of this.