Southron Ambitions question/observation

[Chaircat Meow]

On 6/28/2018 at 10:57 AM, The WolfSpider said:

Since I'm, regrettably, not sleeping I'm wasting time and cell battery reading ASOIAF material and something occurs to me that I've never seen mentioned anywhere. 

Could Lord Rickard's Southron Ambitions be Lyanna becoming Queen? 

I know about the alliances between the war buddies and all but that's not really ambition is it? Even if they're trying to unseat the Mad King, that's a means to an end. 

We know Lyanna & Rhaegar had something going on clearly,  could her father have been at the root of it?

What else could he have truly desired?

Tywin's standoffishness makes good sense since he had similar ambitions.  I don't know why Hoster wouldn't have the same goal though, not that this was likely the goal of the whole alliance but more like Rickard's.

In my view you are 100% correct. In fact I would go even further. I think southron ambitions ended up as a major conspiracy to dethrone Aerys II, destroy the Targaryen dynasty and replace it with a Stark-Baratheon monarchy.

Nobles and maesters stood behind the scheme; the nobles feared Targaryen tyranny and resented the aloofness of the kings (few marriages were ever contracted between the great houses and the royal family) while the maesters desired to bring about a world without magic; royal arsonist Aegon V and his prophecy obsessed great-grandson suggested this could never happen while the kings of westeros were a magical dynasty.

We know about the plans of the maesters from Marwyn. He tells us the grey rats destroyed the Targaryen dragons to end magic in the world. We can readily infer that once Aegon tried to revive them the knives came out of the cassocks once more. Lady Dustin reveals how the maesters’ schemes interweaved with the machinations of the great houses: it was Lord Rickard’s master who encouraged him with his policy of southern attachments.  

As for Lord Rickard himself he had ambition and wounded family pride; the Starks had been promised a marriage into the Targaryen royal house, the so-called pact of Ice and Fire but it never came. Like many other great nobles Rickard looked with disquiet on the royal family; the current king was mad, but his grandfather had been possessed of a different but even more dangerous kind of insanity.

Aegon V’s plan had been to enforce Dany style social reform with his scaly wmds and the nobles could never be sure the plan would not resurface if House Targaryen remained in being. All the lords and ladies knew a king with dragons could rule as a supreme tyrant.

As the woiaf confirms, the Starks had for centuries held themselves aloof from the affairs of the south, and this was held to be the source of their security. Yet, when Rickard was put to death in King’s Landing many of his subjects held his southern meddling accountable. The woiaf has this to say:

When the Stark line was nearly obliterated by Mad King Aerys after Rhaegar’s abduction of Lyanna, some misguided men laid the blame at the feet of the late Lord Rickard, whose alliance by blood and friendship tied the great houses together and ensured they would act together in response to the Mad King’s crimes.

The text is written by the pro-Robert (and pro-Lannister) maester Yandel, so we should not take too seriously his charge that the misguided men really were misguided. The quote above does not make it clear why the misguided men felt the way they did, but just prior to it comes the argument that the Starks preserved themselves by avoiding the power struggles of the south. The charge against Rickard then is that his death was a direct result of abandoning the tradition of his ancestors, and not an inexplicable mad act on the part of Aerys II.

At this point we might ask why Rickard, who had assembled through ties of marriage and fosterhood this great alliance went meekly to his death in King’s Landing after he learned Prince Rhaegar had abducted Lyanna. And the answer is that the marriage between Robert and Lyanna was the keystone in the arch of the scheme.

The royal marriage, promised many years ago to Cregan, was Rickard’s great prize but for the nobles and maesters too the marriage promised to fulfil all their desires. The magical dynasty which threatened them with tyranny, liberty for their peasants and a return of magic to the world would be swept away. The new king would have just enough Targaryen blood to justify the continuing unity of the realm (which was united by the Targaryen dynasty and nothing else) but was in all other respects as far away from the Targaryens as it was possible to be.

Among the recent Baratheons there was no history of magic and prophecy obsession, no reluctance to wed with the other great houses and no stain of family madness. The monarchy would now exist as primus inter pares among the great houses and the remnants of the Targaryen supremacy, forged and upheld by the battlesteads of ancient Valyria, would be no more.  

[Bael's Bastard]

2 hours ago, The WolfSpider said:

Women can inherit too though. I don't see them handing the dynasty over to a Baratheon over a Targaryen woman,  even if it meant possible rebellion

Women do not inherit the Iron Throne. And when there were seven kingdoms, there is no evidence women inherited those thrones either.

Rhaenys was not only female, but a child.

If it had ever actually come down to a choice between her and Robert, I am sure the adult male Baratheon with female line Targ ancestry would have been chosen.

[BlackLightning]

Women can, in fact, inherit the Iron Throne and the Seven Kingdoms.

It's just that they are the very, very last ones in the line of succession.

If there are no more male Targaryens, then the female Targaryens are in a position to inherit. You just have to go through all of the cousins, brothers, grandfathers, uncles, nephews, sons and grandsons first.

So, while passing over a full Targaryen female for a Baratheon male with a female Targaryen ancestor sounds like something a lot of people would try to do...

...it's extremely unlikely. Especially if said Targaryen female can enforce her birthright with martial or financial means.

[anjulibai]

It's possible the Southron Ambitions were not so much political as economic. The North isn't particularly rich, and there seem to be areas that are decreasing in population. Perhaps Rickard thought the marriages of Lyanna and Brandon to southron great houses, and Ned's fostering with a third, would open up economic opportunities and bring more traders to the North. By increasing contacts with the South, Rickard could have hoped to improve conditions in the North. 

[Lord Varys]

14 hours ago, Chaircat Meow said:

In my view you are 100% correct. In fact I would go even further. I think southron ambitions ended up as a major conspiracy to dethrone Aerys II, destroy the Targaryen dynasty and replace it with a Stark-Baratheon monarchy.

There is no evidence for that.

Quote

Nobles and maesters stood behind the scheme; the nobles feared Targaryen tyranny and resented the aloofness of the kings (few marriages were ever contracted between the great houses and the royal family) while the maesters desired to bring about a world without magic; royal arsonist Aegon V and his prophecy obsessed great-grandson suggested this could never happen while the kings of westeros were a magical dynasty.

Which is why it makes no sense to assume that a conspiracy involving the Citadel would want a Baratheon on the Iron Throne. The Baratheons are an illegitimate Targaryen cadet branch, founded by Aerion Targaryen's bastard Orys Baratheon, who get another infusion of dragon blood when Alyssa Velaryon married Lord Baratheon, and then later still when Ormund Baratheon married Princess Rhaelle Targaryen.

In relation to magic, etc. the Baratheons would be as untrustworthy and potentially insane as the Targaryens.

Instead, such people would try to hand power to a dynasty with no blood ties whatsoever to House Targaryen.

There is also no reason to believe the great lords of the Realm felt slighted by the fact that the Targaryens didn't intermarry with them all that much. On what do you base such speculation?

Quote

We know about the plans of the maesters from Marwyn. He tells us the grey rats destroyed the Targaryen dragons to end magic in the world. We can readily infer that once Aegon tried to revive them the knives came out of the cassocks once more. Lady Dustin reveals how the maesters’ schemes interweaved with the machinations of the great houses: it was Lord Rickard’s master who encouraged him with his policy of southern attachments.

The attempts to bring the dragons back never ceased. Why didn't the maesters not put down the Targaryens when they were at their mercy? When Aegon III and Viserys II and their half-sisters were children? Why not end their line during the reign of the boy kings Daeron I and Baelor I? They didn't have a lot of heirs.

Targeting the dragons isn't the same as targeting their riders - and possibly preventing attempts to hatch dragon eggs isn't the same as targeting the entire family line.

Quote

As for Lord Rickard himself he had ambition and wounded family pride; the Starks had been promised a marriage into the Targaryen royal house, the so-called pact of Ice and Fire but it never came. Like many other great nobles Rickard looked with disquiet on the royal family; the current king was mad, but his grandfather had been possessed of a different but even more dangerous kind of insanity.

Cregan Stark could have claimed either Baela or Rhaena Targaryen as a bride in 131 AC. Instead he chose Black Aly Blackwood. It was his choice. If somebody broke the Pact of Ice and Fire it was Lord Cregan, not the Targaryens.

Brandon had long been betrothed before Aerys II showed problematic signs of madness - not to mention that there is no indication the man cared about the mental state of his king when searching for a bride for his heir.

Quote

Aegon V’s plan had been to enforce Dany style social reform with his scaly wmds and the nobles could never be sure the plan would not resurface if House Targaryen remained in being. All the lords and ladies knew a king with dragons could rule as a supreme tyrant.

Aegon V actually had pretty good ties to the North, helping them out during the six-year-winter. His wife was a Blackwood and Lord Stark was married to a Blackwood, too, possibly Black Betha's sister or first cousin.

There were lords opposed to Aegon V's social reforms but there is no indication that the Starks were among the lords opposed to this.

Quote

As the woiaf confirms, the Starks had for centuries held themselves aloof from the affairs of the south, and this was held to be the source of their security. Yet, when Rickard was put to death in King’s Landing many of his subjects held his southern meddling accountable. The woiaf has this to say:

When the Stark line was nearly obliterated by Mad King Aerys after Rhaegar’s abduction of Lyanna, some misguided men laid the blame at the feet of the late Lord Rickard, whose alliance by blood and friendship tied the great houses together and ensured they would act together in response to the Mad King’s crimes.

Lord Rickard himself chose to involve himself in the affairs of the south with his 'southron ambitions'. Whether staying aloof was a source of security is not clear. If you stay out of something you cannot hope to influence events. And it is not that the North didn't need help in cruel winters or with the rebellions and they faced in the 3rd century.

Quote

At this point we might ask why Rickard, who had assembled through ties of marriage and fosterhood this great alliance went meekly to his death in King’s Landing after he learned Prince Rhaegar had abducted Lyanna. And the answer is that the marriage between Robert and Lyanna was the keystone in the arch of the scheme.

Lord Rickard had no part in the Robert-Lyanna match aside from agreeing to the match. It was Robert who wanted to marry Lyanna, not Rickard who wanted Robert to marry Lyanna.

Quote

The royal marriage, promised many years ago to Cregan, was Rickard’s great prize but for the nobles and maesters too the marriage promised to fulfil all their desires. The magical dynasty which threatened them with tyranny, liberty for their peasants and a return of magic to the world would be swept away. The new king would have just enough Targaryen blood to justify the continuing unity of the realm (which was united by the Targaryen dynasty and nothing else) but was in all other respects as far away from the Targaryens as it was possible to be.

And this idea is based on ... what exactly? If Daemon the Younger can have prophetic dreams about dragon eggs hatching, if Daeron the Drunk and Aerion Brightflame - the sons of a Dayne and the grandsons of a Martell - can depict dangerous aspects of the 'Targaryen magic thing' then what is protecting Steffon Baratheon's descendants from the same madness?

In fact, Stannis Baratheon has already fallen prey to this madness, when Melisandre of Asshai convinced him that he is 'special' and 'destined to save the world' because he rules Dragonstone and is the descendant of Princess Rhaelle and Aegon V.

Quote

Among the recent Baratheons there was no history of magic and prophecy obsession, no reluctance to wed with the other great houses and no stain of family madness. The monarchy would now exist as primus inter pares among the great houses and the remnants of the Targaryen supremacy, forged and upheld by the battlesteads of ancient Valyria, would be no more.  

Robert Baratheon isn't a primus inter pares. He is as much an aloof king as anyone before him. His weakness is due to the fact that he doesn't care about ruling his Realm, but his family (Cersei, his children and his brothers) all make it clear what it means to be a member of the royal family.

And even his old buddy Ned knows that the crown set him and Robert apart for all time. They are now subject and king, not peers.

But the most important thing is that the weakening of the throne isn't going to be something the great houses can have a vested interest. It will increase the risk of devastating civil wars. It is very ambition that the ambition of most of the great lords of the Realm revolves around controlling the Iron Throne, not about limiting themselves to their small regions.

[Bael's Bastard]

10 hours ago, Jabar of House Titan said:

Women can, in fact, inherit the Iron Throne and the Seven Kingdoms.

It's just that they are the very, very last ones in the line of succession.

If there are no more male Targaryens, then the female Targaryens are in a position to inherit. You just have to go through all of the cousins, brothers, grandfathers, uncles, nephews, sons and grandsons first.

So, while passing over a full Targaryen female for a Baratheon male with a female Targaryen ancestor sounds like something a lot of people would try to do...

...it's extremely unlikely. Especially if said Targaryen female can enforce her birthright with martial or financial means.

Women can hypothetically inherit the Iron Throne after all possible males, but it is highly unlikely that a woman would ever cleanly inherit the Iron Throne through succession. That is by design, and was the point of placing Targaryen females behind all possible males in the succession.

The already loose rules of inheritance when it comes to the Iron Throne obviously go out the window when there is an internal Targaryen succession crisis or conflict, and houses choose sides based on their best interests or opportunities.

But in a scenario where all male-line Targaryen men have somehow perished, and the realm is otherwise at peace, it seems highly unlikely that a Targaryen princess would receive the support to cleanly inherit the throne over a non-Targaryen male with recent female-line Targaryen ancestry.

It might be a different story in a scenario where Rhaenys or Daenerys has an adult or somewhat grown son at the time all male-line Targaryen males perished. But in that scenario, such a son would almost certainly already have been the chosen heir of the last male-line Targaryen man.

And House Baratheon is not like any other non-Targaryen house in Westeros. It is highly likely that the Baratheon lords are male-line descendants of Aerion Targaryen, father of Aegon I, and thus that the Baratheons are Targaryens in all but name. Regardless of the truth of it, this was believed by King Argilac Durrendon, and Maester Yandel attests that it is still widely believed to this day.

Furthermore, I don't personally buy into the rumors that Aegon I did not father Aenys, but there is at least some possibility that the Baratheon male line is in actuality the only extant biological unbroken male-line from the pre-conquest Targaryen Lords of Dragonstone.

Thus, aside from the confirmed Targaryen ancestry through Princess Rhaelle (daughter of Aegon V), and Alyssa Velaryon (daughter of unnamed Targaryen mother), there is a widely believed perception that the Baratheons are descended from the same man that fathered Aegon I, Visenya, and Rhaenys.

[Lord Varys]

The problem with a peaceful succession of a king with only a daughter or granddaughter vs. a male from a female cadet branch is that a daughter can give birth to a son. That would have been a pretty big issue in 92 AC when Jaehaerys I passed over Princess Rhaenys (and with her any great-grandsons she might give him in the future).

Steffon's sons have royal blood, but a princess marrying a Lannister or a Hightower or an Arryn could have the same standing as Robert. The male sex would speak in favor of Robert, but the royal birth in favor of the princess. It would be a tough call.

If we are talking about young girls vs. grown men the outcome would be clear, but if it was a female Rhaegar (without siblings) married to a great lord vs. Robert things wouldn't be clear at all. There is no precedent how to deal with two conflicting claims through the female line.

But my gut feeling is that in such cases the royal birth might end up on top. Steffon's sons are of high birth but they are not royalty.

Cutting a royal princess out the succession in favor of a male descendant through the female line could easily lead to a struggle later on if said princess produced sons and grandsons of her own. And Robert feared the claim a son of Daenerys and Drogo might be able to put forth...

What's clear is that the male line should come before the female (Baelon before Rhaenys, Viserys before Laenor, Viserys II before his nieces, etc.) but it never came to a discussion over the validity of claimants through the female line.

And we still have to deal with the odd fact that Aerys I named his niece Aelora his Heir Apparent, only turning to his brother Maekar after her death. The dismissal of the female line wasn't as rock-tight as some people think it was.

Aegon III's immediate heirs prior to the return of Viserys would have been Queen Jaehaera, followed by his half-sisters. There was nobody else left. People may have hoped that Aegon III live long enough for Baela and Rhaena to produce sons so the throne could pass through them to a male heir, but in absence of that they would have to make their peace with the prospect that might be getting a female monarch.

In general one has to keep in mind that abstract legal principles and the like mostly matter when scholars and lords with no strong ties to the royal family discuss things like that. If the monarch himself can rule on his own succession he is much more likely to favor his own immediate kin rather than more distant relations.

In that sense, it is very unlikely that Aerys II would have favored Robert over his own daughter or granddaughter. Just as Cersei and Robert are less likely to favor a hypothetical son of Stannis and Renly over their own daughter Myrcella if she was the only child they had.

[BlackLightning]

2 hours ago, Bael's Bastard said:

Women can hypothetically inherit the Iron Throne after all possible males, but it is highly unlikely that a woman would ever cleanly inherit the Iron Throne through succession. That is by design, and was the point of placing Targaryen females behind all possible males in the succession.

The already loose rules of inheritance when it comes to the Iron Throne obviously go out the window when there is an internal Targaryen succession crisis or conflict, and houses choose sides based on their best interests or opportunities.

But in a scenario where all male-line Targaryen men have somehow perished, and the realm is otherwise at peace, it seems highly unlikely that a Targaryen princess would receive the support to cleanly inherit the throne over a non-Targaryen male with recent female-line Targaryen ancestry.

It might be a different story in a scenario where Rhaenys or Daenerys has an adult or somewhat grown son at the time all male-line Targaryen males perished. But in that scenario, such a son would almost certainly already have been the chosen heir of the last male-line Targaryen man.

Ok.

I do agree that Daenerys' age and childlessness is a big disadvantage if it ever came down to her vs. Robert. As a matter of fact, if it ever gets out that Daenerys is barren (or is she???), then Daenerys' claim is forfeit. A sterile male would still be able to inherit. But a barren female?! In Westeros?! Never … well maybe only in Dorne.

In any case, Robert's female Targaryen ancestor (paternal grandmother) is neither as recent nor as strong as people would think it is.

Robb had a stronger claim to Riverrun than Robert had ever had to the Iron Throne. And that's saying something because Robb comes AFTER his grandfather and incumbent, his uncle, any children his uncle may have and his mother.

Mother of the inheriting Lord x Sisters or Elder Daughters of the original Lord = stronger Baratheon claim

Grandmother of the inheriting Lord x Youngest Female Child of the original Lord two generations ago = weaker Baratheon claim 

Like I just said, Robert's claim is only valid if you go two generations backwards into a entirely different House and take a close look at the king's youngest child (a female at that). Why would Robert and pretty much his entire court fear Daenerys if his claim was that strong? Better yet, why wouldn't Robert fear Daenerys? His claim is a stretch and everyone from the Shadow Tower to Volantis knows it.

As a matter of fact, I think a couple characters even lampshaded it in the first book.

Hell, Aegon - regardless of whether he is a real Targaryen or a Blackfyre with a female ancestor - has a debatably stronger claim than Daenerys and Daenerys' claim is rock to the MF solid.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

In general one has to keep in mind that abstract legal principles and the like mostly matter when scholars and lords with no strong ties to the royal family discuss things like that. If the monarch himself can rule on his own succession he is much more likely to favor his own immediate kin rather than more distant relations.

In that sense, it is very unlikely that Aerys II would have favored Robert over his own daughter or granddaughter. Just as Cersei and Robert are less likely to favor a hypothetical son of Stannis and Renly over their own daughter Myrcella if she was the only child they had.

Even if Myrcella wasn't the only (legitimate) child that they had, Cersei and Robert still wouldn't favor Stannis' or Renly's bloodline over Myrcella.

There are very few people in Westeros on both sides of the Wall who would favor their sibling, uncle or nephew (much less mother or grandparent) over their own daughter.

In fact, if they did, they would find that their power base would shrink as a result.

[BRANDON GREYSTARK]

Southron Ambition was different from what we perceive . This was basically the scheme of the maesters  ( Walys ) in order to cement the realm after the end of the Targaryens , which seemed to be dying out at the time after the Tragedy at Summerhal .

[Bael's Bastard]

21 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The problem with a peaceful succession of a king with only a daughter or granddaughter vs. a male from a female cadet branch is that a daughter can give birth to a son. That would have been a pretty big issue in 92 AC when Jaehaerys I passed over Princess Rhaenys (and with her any great-grandsons she might give him in the future).

Steffon's sons have royal blood, but a princess marrying a Lannister or a Hightower or an Arryn could have the same standing as Robert. The male sex would speak in favor of Robert, but the royal birth in favor of the princess. It would be a tough call.

If we are talking about young girls vs. grown men the outcome would be clear, but if it was a female Rhaegar (without siblings) married to a great lord vs. Robert things wouldn't be clear at all. There is no precedent how to deal with two conflicting claims through the female line.

But my gut feeling is that in such cases the royal birth might end up on top. Steffon's sons are of high birth but they are not royalty.

Cutting a royal princess out the succession in favor of a male descendant through the female line could easily lead to a struggle later on if said princess produced sons and grandsons of her own. And Robert feared the claim a son of Daenerys and Drogo might be able to put forth...

What's clear is that the male line should come before the female (Baelon before Rhaenys, Viserys before Laenor, Viserys II before his nieces, etc.) but it never came to a discussion over the validity of claimants through the female line.

And we still have to deal with the odd fact that Aerys I named his niece Aelora his Heir Apparent, only turning to his brother Maekar after her death. The dismissal of the female line wasn't as rock-tight as some people think it was.

Aegon III's immediate heirs prior to the return of Viserys would have been Queen Jaehaera, followed by his half-sisters. There was nobody else left. People may have hoped that Aegon III live long enough for Baela and Rhaena to produce sons so the throne could pass through them to a male heir, but in absence of that they would have to make their peace with the prospect that might be getting a female monarch.

In general one has to keep in mind that abstract legal principles and the like mostly matter when scholars and lords with no strong ties to the royal family discuss things like that. If the monarch himself can rule on his own succession he is much more likely to favor his own immediate kin rather than more distant relations.

In that sense, it is very unlikely that Aerys II would have favored Robert over his own daughter or granddaughter. Just as Cersei and Robert are less likely to favor a hypothetical son of Stannis and Renly over their own daughter Myrcella if she was the only child they had.

It doesn't matter who Aerys would have favored if he is dead, as in the hypothetical that there are only Targaryen princesses left. And I don't think there is any chance that the lords of the realm, or any Great Council, supports such a lone surviving Targaryen princess inheriting cleanly, especially a child or infant. Even in the event that all of Aerys's male heirs predecease him, and he explicitly names Rhaenys, or Daenerys, or Rhaella his heir, I see no chance such a decision is honored by the lords of the realm after his death. They might be able to win one powerful house or another over to their cause with the promise of a royal marriage, but for the most part, the lords of the realm are not going to support a woman sitting the Iron Throne in her own right. If Rhaenys or Daenerys were grown and already had a son of some age to inherit them, that might be a different matter. Otherwise, I think under almost any circumstance, Robert would have been favored over any Targaryen princess in their own right, not that he would have accepted.

[Lord Varys]

4 minutes ago, Bael's Bastard said:

Even in the event that all of Aerys's male heirs predecease him, and he explicitly names Rhaenys, or Daenerys, or Rhaella his heir, I see no chance such a decision is honored by the lords of the realm after his death.

I'd not be so sure of that. Especially since the lords of the Realm are usually not asked about their opinion on the succession. Again, usually abstract legal principles play no role in such discussions. Only when men who are not personally involved in the succession does this kind of stuff matter. If you can marry your son or brother to a royal princess then her claim looks much better than that of a guy who is already married, etc.

4 minutes ago, Bael's Bastard said:

If Rhaenys or Daenerys were grown and already had a son of some age to inherit them, that might be a different matter.

No, then the crown would most likely go to those male heirs rather than the women. They would be passed over.

4 minutes ago, Bael's Bastard said:

Otherwise, I think under almost any circumstance, Robert would have been favored over any Targaryen princess in their own right, not that he would have accepted.

The fact that Myrcella and Shireen are the unquestioned heirs of Tommen/Stannis right now makes that not so likely. They must have male and female line male cousins, and if women are unbearable on the throne the claims of those people would be much stronger than those of the royal princesses.

[Bael's Bastard]

15 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

I'd not be so sure of that. Especially since the lords of the Realm are usually not asked about their opinion on the succession. Again, usually abstract legal principles play no role in such discussions. Only when men who are not personally involved in the succession does this kind of stuff matter. If you can marry your son or brother to a royal princess then her claim looks much better than that of a guy who is already married, etc.

In the hypothetical where all male-line Targaryens have perished, where House Targaryen can only be carried on by female-line descendants, do you really think the opinions of the lords of the realm would play no factor in who became the next ruler? Again, Targaryen women have been put behind everyone else, so a hypothetical where they actually come into play is a most extreme circumstance. In such a circumstance, especially in the case where the remaining Targaryen females are babies and an older queen, it seems highly unlikely that a descendant or sibling of Aerys sits the throne. They might be able to win one house to their cause with a marriage, but that isn't going to help them with the rest, especially in a hypothetical where the other houses haven't been decimated by Robert's Rebellion or the War of the Five Kings.

25 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

No, then the crown would most likely go to those male heirs rather than the women. They would be passed over.

That is the point. The crown would be highly unlikely to go to Rhaenys or Daenerys in their own right. In a hypothetical where they are women grown, and have sons, the crown certainly passes to their son before it passes to Robert. But that is a different hypothetical. I was responding to someone claiming the Baratheons were way down the line of succession, which was not the case at the time that Robert and Rickard arranged the betrothal, which another person was claiming was related to their desire to take the throne. Even if one were to say that the Targaryen women came before the Baratheons at that time, there were still not a lot before them. But I really don't think it is likely that in a scenario where Aerys and his male descendants perished, his female descendants or wife succeed inherit him before the Baratheons do, even if Aerys had explicitly named Rhaenys, or Daenerys, or Rhaella his heir.

31 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The fact that Myrcella and Shireen are the unquestioned heirs of Tommen/Stannis right now makes that not so likely. They must have male and female line male cousins, and if women are unbearable on the throne the claims of those people would be much stronger than those of the royal princesses.

That is an entirely different circumstance than the hypothetical being discussed. The Baratheons were close relatives with warm relations with the royal family at the time that Robert and Rickard arranged the betrothal. Robert was not ambitious for the throne, and it is possible he wouldn't have accepted even if it were offered to him. Stannis and the legal descendants of Robert are at war over the throne. Stannis does not recognize them as Robert's descendants, and they have attained Stannis.

[Lord Varys]

2 minutes ago, Bael's Bastard said:

Again, Targaryen women have been put behind everyone else, so a hypothetical where they actually come into play is a most extreme circumstance.

But that's it - we don't know whether females through the female line come behind males through the female line or not.

Our precedents (in peace times) show only females or males through the female against males through the male line.

And Robert is well aware that his claim sucks against both Viserys III (obviously) but also against Daenerys and Daenerys' children by a savage foreigner. That tells us something about the validity of such claims.

Aerys II and Steffon were pretty close - but Aerys II and Steffon's sons never were close. Neither Robert nor Stannis had high positions or offices at court, nor were they taken in as royal wards, etc.

One assumes we would have seen a Targaryen-Baratheon marriage if Aerys II had only had female heirs, but whether the Baratheon man or the Targaryen would have ended up sitting the throne is, in my opinion, pretty unclear.

[Bael's Bastard]

Robert's fear of Daenerys and her pregnancy in AGOT never made any sense, except because the author chose to have him be fearful. He makes Robert more concerned about a hypothetical son of a daughter of a Targaryen king, than of an actual crowned-in-exile Targaryen king. But again this is in hindsight after he had warred against them and taken their throne, when Targaryen loyalists are more likely to throw their support behind any Targaryen claimant with military backing, without regard for succession laws. Robert knows the child will not be a male line Targaryen, and is probably more concerned about the tens of thousands Dothraki that would invade, than their place in the Targaryen succession.

[Lord Varys]

7 minutes ago, Bael's Bastard said:

Robert's fear of Daenerys and her pregnancy in AGOT never made any sense, except because the author chose to have him be fearful. He makes Robert more concerned about a hypothetical son of a daughter of a Targaryen king, than of an actual crowned-in-exile Targaryen king. But again this is in hindsight after he had warred against them and taken their throne, when Targaryen loyalists are more likely to throw their support behind any Targaryen claimant with military backing, without regard for succession laws. Robert knows the child will not be a male line Targaryen, and is probably more concerned about the tens of thousands Dothraki that would invade, than their place in the Targaryen succession.

Sorry, I think Robert's fears are more relevant to the plot and legal framework of the series than your or my speculations.

Rhaego has a stronger claim than Robert himself (as son and not the mere grandson of a princess) and he is potentially more dangerous than Viserys III because as a born Dothraki he is more likely to really command their allegiance one day. But Robert's prime fear is Viserys III, of course. He is the one arranging the wedding, and he is the one in whose name Drogo was likely to invade.

Once we talk war then legal arguments become completely irrelevant unless they are used as propaganda tools to try and win more supporters.

[BlackLightning]

1 hour ago, Bael's Bastard said:

Robert's fear of Daenerys and her pregnancy in AGOT never made any sense, except because the author chose to have him be fearful. He makes Robert more concerned about a hypothetical son of a daughter of a Targaryen king, than of an actual crowned-in-exile Targaryen king. But again this is in hindsight after he had warred against them and taken their throne, when Targaryen loyalists are more likely to throw their support behind any Targaryen claimant with military backing, without regard for succession laws. Robert knows the child will not be a male line Targaryen, and is probably more concerned about the tens of thousands Dothraki that would invade, than their place in the Targaryen succession. 

1.  Bobby Stark, the Lord of Winterfell, marrying Jill Lannister of Casterly Rock and having babies that become Starks of Winterfell, the eldest boy being the future Lord of Winterfell

--or--

2.  Susie Stark, the ruling Lady of Winterfell, marrying Jack Lannister of Casterly Rock and having babies that have very strong claims to both Winterfell and Casterly Rock

Which one of the two Starks are scarier?

Better yet, let's look at the average highborn man and the average highborn woman.

• If Bobby had nothing but his name, his good looks and his claim to Winterfell (a claim he can't enforce yet), why would a woman want to marry him? What do women look for in a man?
• If Susie had nothing but her name, her good looks and her claim to Winterfell (a claim she can't enforce yet), why wouldn't a man want to marry her? What do men look for in a woman?

This is why news of Daenerys Targaryen's marriage and subsequent pregnancy had Robert and the Small Council so shook. She has always been a bigger threat to the Baratheon dynasty than Viserys. Both in the short-term and the long-term.

[Chaircat Meow]

On 7/5/2018 at 12:59 PM, Lord Varys said:

SNIP!!!!

Lord ‘there is no evidence/reason’ Varys has sallied forth and it falls on Chaircat to respond.

First, Chaircat will concede that his argument is a theory, and it is speculation. We lack definitive proof. Nevertheless, it is informed speculation, derived from clues given in the text, synthesized with a framework which allows us to make judgements regarding the author’s intention.

The principal charge against those who deny ‘southron ambitions’ entailed anything especially ambitious has been ably stated by the original poster. The unbelievers have yet to provide a convincing rationale for the policies of Rickard, which we are told amounted to an outright defiance of the traditions of House Stark. The unbeliever can give no reason regarding why Rickard wanted influence in the south; they always fail to answer what he hoped these alliances would achieve.

We are told Rickard wanted a say in affairs in the Riverlands, or in the Stormlands. Nowhere in the books do we see that one lord derives any influence on policy in a given region because he has marriage ties there. Ned had no say in the Riverlands through a marriage to Catelyn; Robert had no say in the Westerlands in virtue of a marriage to Cersei.

In addition, there is no reason (to use again that hallowed phrase of yours) that any great lord would want influence in a region other than his own, unless the reason was nefarious, or, at least, based on the need for security, such as flipping a key bannerman or something of that kind. The Starks in particular had nothing to gain from influence over the affairs of the Stormlands for its own sake.

So, it falls to the unbelievers to offer some convincing rationale for Rickard’s actions, which they have thus far failed to do.

Moving on, the second chief objection you have put forth regards the dragon blood of the Baratheons. You ask why a plot designed to purge westeros of a magical dynasty, with links to the magic of ancient Valyria, could alight on the Baratheons, a Targaryen cadet branch, as their chosen saviours.

And the answer is twofold. Firstly, all political action must have regard to the prevailing forms of legitimacy. Power in westeros is inherited; it must be tied to family. Therefore, a new king and a new dynasty must have some ties by blood to the family to whom custom accords a right to rule all of westeros. There is no getting away from this, so while from our standpoint it might have been safer to support a totally non-Valyrian dynasty it was not actually a viable option.

Secondly, blood is only part of the story. Doubtless there are plenty of nobles and commoners running around in westeros with Targaryen blood. Perhaps real extremists in the Citadel would want to exterminate them too. However, there is a crucial difference between what we would call genes and the membership of a specific family or dynasty possessed of those same genes. Only when both are united is there danger. 

The Targaryens had their family traditions and their ancestral memories, passed down from one generation to the next, which kept alive their links to Valyria and the old Valyrian magic, just as the Starks and Lannisters remember their ancestors. There is no sign that the Baratheons kept these traditions alive, so while they might be genetically capable of returning dragons to life it would never enter their heads to try to do so, and so they are no threat to the Citadel.

Now, regarding the fact we are told, in the app apparently, that Robert proposed to Lyanna, this means little. It is customary for the male to propose to the female, and as we have seen with the Tyrell-Lannister marriage, the great lords often carefully prepare the ground and seed the imagination of those they hope to ally with through marriage, so that a proposal is forthcoming. In addition, according to Chaircat's theory, certain high-ranking maesters were guiding elements of Rickard's system of alliances, so they could have nurtured the idea in Robert's mind. 

Finally, you say that we have no evidence House Stark was opposed to Aegon V's reforms. That's true but it is only true because no particular house is ever mentioned by name as opposed to the reforms. It seems reasonable to infer that every great lord was opposed to Aegon V's schemes as they represented a colossal loss of power on their part and would, moreover, be enforced by dragons, if Aegon's dreams had become reality.

Chaircat waits with baited breath for the response of Lord Varys.   

[Charles Calthrop]

On 6/28/2018 at 3:38 PM, Bael's Bastard said:

Rickard was already Lord of Winterfell when he visited King's Landing in 264, a visit which awakened Aerys's interest in the North, after which he hatched a plan to build a new Wall hundreds of leagues north of the Wall.

I totally missed this.  Which book was this in? (Not doubting you, just completely missed this when reading.)

[Angel Eyes]

2 minutes ago, Charles Calthrop said:

I totally missed this.  Which book was this in? (Not doubting you, just completely missed this when reading.)

It was in The World of Ice and Fire, in the section on Aerys II.

[Charles Calthrop]

On 6/28/2018 at 6:54 PM, Allardyce said:

The Southron Ambitions is looking more like a plot by the Starks to put Robert on the throne.  They wanted to take the Targaryens out of the picture.  Brandon was going to be Robert's hand and obviously Lyanna will be his queen.  Rickard was dreaming big.  But the importance of the Targaryens to the story is greater than any plot that Rickard's little heart could have plotted out.  The Targaryens survived the Doom of Valyria and they survived Robert's Rebellion.   

 

No I think the intent seems more akin to setting up a Magna Carta situation - strong Lords Paramount banding together to push a weak King to grant them additional rights.  Besides, no plotter would think of Brandon as HotK material.  (Ok not a smart plotter; Cersei did think Jaime was HotK material.)