Were Ned, Robert and Jon Arryn the villains of the rebellion?

[Moiraine Sedai]

18 hours ago, King Aegon I Targaryen said:

As I said, the situation isn't black and white, both sides had pretty shitty people. 

True, both sides had their shitty people.  Still, the rebellion was not justified. 

[Moiraine Sedai]

On 12/12/2018 at 11:12 AM, Universal Sword Donor said:

That comes up approximately zero times in canon or semi canon books.

No dispute here

And we're done here. Whether or not the Vale and the North wanted Aerys gone, you cannot arbitrarily murder your vassals and not expect any kind of pushback. There was no trial. There was no hard and fast evidence, just Aerys' vast paranoia. The Southampton plot against Henry V is comparable and they had trials and evidence before the executions.  

Brandon was tortured and he sang.  He revealed all.  The squire chose to live and told all.  Varys probably had ways of making Brandon talk.  He wasn't questioned about the weather.  They didnt talk about the price of beans in Dorne.  He was put to the question and admitted his family's guilt.  That is enough evidence. 

[Moiraine Sedai]

14 hours ago, divica said:

You and a lot of people are interpreting villains as people that are monsters while I meant villains as people that are acting against what is lawfull/right.

And if the northerns had a conspiracy to depose aerys and kill his familly in order to put robert on the throne then it was aerys that had grievances with ned and robert.

And that aerys had a right in wanting their heads! 

You are absolutely correct.  Aerys had all the legal right in the world to protect his right to rule.  Brandon and Rickard deserved to die for plotting against him.  Robert too.  And if Ned knew, he should also be executed.

[DarkSister1001]

14 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

What i meant was Aerys or at least house Targaryen wasnt the villain either. Robert and them attacked first and climbed over dead children to claim the same tyrant throne that he deposed. The tale Brienne knows of Robert riding to save the realm is just a story riddled with propaganda

14 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Evil is a strong word so i tried to soften it, but he was a rapist murderer so evil works.

Evil is the exact word for someone who burns a person and gets so aroused he rapes his sister/wife.  Evil is perfect for someone who intends to move forward with mass genocide.  Nah, Aerys was evil.  But it isn't mutually exclusive.  Just bc Aerys was evil doesn't mean that Robert didn't do evil things, like excusing the murder of children. 

A villain is a monster and that's exactly what Aerys was at the beginning of RR. 

15 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Cersei has coherent thoughts and justified paranoia, she may be more evil then Aerys but her POVs read off mentally sound which makes me think Aerys was as well

I disagree.  Her POVs read more and more disturbed to me. 

15 hours ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

Right but we have no idea if it was an alliance to depose Aerys and raise Rhaegar, or if it was a defensive alliance.

Exactly.

[Universal Sword Donor]

8 hours ago, wia said:

Well, seeing how there's no mention of Rhaegar accusing Tywin of treason at that moment, I'd say it does.

And there's only one reason to call a council.

Rhaegar might well have preferred to be king but not accusing Tywin of treason proves nothing. Sometimes doing nothing is a real cool hand.

There's any number of reasons to call a council: one of them is to depose Aerys. Others would include a council of regents to curb his awful behavior or announcing limits on the kings ultimate judicial authority.

[DarkSister1001]

4 minutes ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

Others would include a council of regents to curb his awful behavior or announcing limits on the kings ultimate judicial authority.

I was just typing up almost the exact same sentence. 

A child king has a regent until he's 16 since it's assumed he's too young to be an effective leader and there are concerns about the damage he could do to the realm.  That's not treason.  With the same logic a sick king could have a regent until he gets better (or dies) for the sake of the realm.  Aeyrs could no longer be trusted to pick his own Hand.  Something had to be done.  A council could be a means to protect the realm, the royal family and the king. 

ETA:  Since Rhaegar didn't say "Great Council" it's open to being either way.  Cat did not leave it open when a new king needed to be chosen. 

Quote

"Let the three of you call for a Great Council, such as the realm has not seen for a hundred years.

 

[wia]

2 minutes ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

Rhaegar might well have preferred to be king but not accusing Tywin of treason proves nothing. Sometimes doing nothing is a real cool hand.

There's any number of reasons to call a council: one of them is to depose Aerys. Others would include a council of regents to curb his awful behavior or announcing limits on the kings ultimate judicial authority.

A council of regents to curb his awful behaviour or announcing limits on the kings ultimate judicial authority is pretty much the same as deposing him in terms of the actual power he'd have since most of his decisions were awful. 

And, seeing how he was mad, anyone who knows him would be able to predict that he won't take it, will resist it and it will, most likely, ultimately lead to his death or imprisonment.

Whether by actually deposing or by a little bit more subtle means, Rhaegar was planning to get rid of Aerys before the war. 

[DarkSister1001]

Just now, wia said:

A council of regents to curb his awful behaviour or announcing limits on the kings ultimate judicial authority is pretty much the same as deposing him in terms of the actual power he'd have since most of his decisions were awful. 

I disagree.  Restricting is not deposing.  He'd still be king but more importantly his House would maintain the throne.

[wia]

1 minute ago, DarkSister1001 said:

I disagree.  Restricting is not deposing.  He'd still be king but more importantly his House would maintain the throne.

Telling someone who only eats food that contains sugar to stop eating sugar is telling them to stop eating.
A reasonable council of regents for a reasonable king would not be restricting at all, a reasonable council of regents for a an absolutely crazy king would formally be restricting but in practice would be deposing.

A council of regents for Aerys in particular, a king who removed tongues of people who called him a figurehead and made major political decisions to spite his Hand who was better than him at ruling, would effectively destroy him.

The House would maintain the throne if Rhaegar formally deposed him and became a king as well, so there's no difference at all.

 

[DarkSister1001]

2 minutes ago, wia said:

A reasonable council of regents for a reasonable king would not be restricting at all, 

An of-age, reasonable king would not need a regency.  If a king is too young, he has regents and isn't disposed, just restricted. 

4 minutes ago, wia said:

The House would maintain the throne if Rhaegar formally deposed him and became a king as well, so there's no difference at all.

That's assuming the Great Council, if in fact that's what he was calling for, named Rhaegar as his successor.  They may have named Viserys and given him a regency.  Or a different House altogether consider the ill feeling towards House Targaryen at that point. 

It's incorrect to state that Rhaegar was going to call a Great Council to replace his father as fact.  It's possible, but other situations are just as possible, based on textual facts. 

The only facts are that Aerys was not well-liked or even capable at the end of his reign.  Rhaegar told Jaime that he planned to call a council to make changes. 

[wia]

Just now, DarkSister1001 said:

An of-age, reasonable king would not need a regency.  If a king is too young, he has regents and isn't disposed, just restricted. 

Thanks for ignoring my point.

 

2 minutes ago, DarkSister1001 said:

That's assuming the Great Council, if in fact that's what he was calling for, named Rhaegar as his successor.  They may have named Viserys and given him a regency.  Or a different House altogether consider the ill feeling towards House Targaryen at that point. 

Are we taking about what would a Great Council do, should it be called, based on what we know, or about why Rhaegar wanted to call one? - 'Cause those are not the same.

What Rhaegar thought a Great Council would do would be why he'd want to call one and possibly why he didn't. We don't have any info on what he thought. But if he wanted to call one, he certainly thought that there is some chance of success. Whether he didn't call it because he though that chance wasn't high enough or because Aerys crashed his Harrenhall party or for some other reasons - we don't know.

 

2 minutes ago, DarkSister1001 said:

It's incorrect to state that Rhaegar was going to call a Great Council to replace his father as fact.  It's possible, but other situations are just as possible, based on textual facts. 

What other councils could he have called based on textual facts?

 

5 minutes ago, DarkSister1001 said:

The only facts are that Aerys was not well-liked or even capable at the end of his reign.  Rhaegar told Jaime that he planned to call a council to make changes. 

Now you're ignoring every quote from TWOIAF that I provided.

What's the point of this conversation if you refer to 'textual evidence' and not provide it and ignore textual evidence that was provided? - None to me. 

[DarkSister1001]

3 minutes ago, wia said:

Thanks for ignoring my point.

Your point is that if Aerys had a regency he would be rendered impotent and no longer be king bc he only wanted to do dumb shit and his regents wouldn't allow it.  Right?  I am saying that it is no different than when a boy king has a regency.  If you accept that a boy king with a regency is still king than ipso facto a king with a regency is still a king. 

And let's not ignore the fact that Joff had a regent and still committed atrocities and still managed to get the throne in to trouble with Great Houses and commons.

10 minutes ago, wia said:

What Rhaegar thought a Great Council would do would be why he'd want to call one and possibly why he didn't. We don't have any info on what he thought. But if he wanted to call one, he certainly thought that there is some chance of success. Whether he didn't call it because he though that chance wasn't high enough or because Aerys crashed his Harrenhall party or for some other reasons - we don't know.

Exactly.  And bc we don't know it's erroneous to call it "fact".  There are other possibilities.  I am not arguing that Rhaeger may or may not have wanted to get everyone together at Harrenhal.  I am arguing that the only facts we have are a statement that he made only to Jaime.  And that statement is open to interpretation. 

12 minutes ago, wia said:

What other councils could he have called based on textual facts? 

Textually, the small council, war council...do you want those quotes?  There's a ton!  Joking!

I'd also like to point out that a Grand Council is a proper noun whereas council is simply a noun.  If we're paying attention to ellipses than we must pay attention to capitalization as well. 

27 minutes ago, wia said:

Now you're ignoring every quote from TWOIAF that I provided.

Negative.  I am keeping in mind the author of TWoIaF.

28 minutes ago, wia said:

What's the point of this conversation if you refer to 'textual evidence' and not provide it and ignore textual evidence that was provided? -

Well that's simply not the case.  I'm referring to one sentence and have quoted it at least twice in this thread.  I also quoted the only other time in the series (companion book aside) in which a Grand Council was discussed and it was stated differently than Rhaegar did leading to the POSSIBILITY that he MIGHT have been wanting something other than a GRAND COUNCIL.

 

33 minutes ago, wia said:

None to me. 

Then stop replying to me.

[John Suburbs]

15 hours ago, Angel Eyes said:

Well, isn’t that what a villain is, a person/character who acts in monstrous ways? Like Tarkin blowing up Alderaan. Billions exterminated in seconds, countless innocent lives lost in an instant. 

Tyrion Lannister is technically an anti-villain, since he has an mostly affable personality, but he aids and abets a cruel tyrant.

Ned Stark beheaded a man who as terrified following an encounter with the walking dead and otherworldly, supernatural beings. Hero or villain?

Jaime Lannister pushed a young boy out a tower window, crippling him for life. Later, he rescues a maiden from a bear, one-handed, and honors his promise to the dead mother of that boy to find her daughter and bring her to safety. Hero or villain?

Danaerys sacked a city and murdered thousands of people who were doing nothing but living their lives just as it was for thousands of years, unleashing disease, death and tyranny upon the very people she meant to protect. Hero or villain?

Arya murders people on contract and left a man (who was trying to return her to her mother and who had saved her life) to die a lingering painful death rather than give him the mercy he was begging for. Hero or villain?

Heros, villains. It's all in how you look at it.

[John Suburbs]

16 hours ago, divica said:

You and a lot of people are interpreting villains as people that are monsters while I meant villains as people that are acting against what is lawfull/right.

And if the northerns had a conspiracy to depose aerys and kill his familly in order to put robert on the throne then it was aerys that had grievances with ned and robert.

And that aerys had a right in wanting their heads! 

Just because you are acting legally and, to your mind, rightly does not mean you are not committing villainy. A judge (or a king) may be able to legally convict a man of murder and sentence him to death, but if he knows he's innocent it is a villainous act. The Holocaust was carried out according to the letter of the law, and the people doing it felt they were in the right. Were they villains or no?

[DarkSister1001]

7 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

The Holocaust was carried out according to the letter of the law, and the people doing it felt they were in the right.

Excellent example!

[The Commentator]

Ned, Robert, and Jon Arryn may not have been villains but it is fact that they took a prospering kingdom and turned it into a fractured land that's now heavily indebted to a foreign bank.  They made things worse.  So Rickard, Robert, Brandon, and Ned wanted to do it for the children.  I assume because they were put off by the way the Lannisters dealt with the Reynes and how Aerys dealt with the Darklyns.  Very well.  Their positive motives aside, the results were disastrous.  Many thousands of children died and got orphaned because of the rebellion.  And that's really Robert being a hypocrite because he didn't support his own bastards.  He was spraying seed all over the place and couldn't be bothered to take care of his own children.  Brandon too was spraying his seeds everywhere.  It's a fine notion but their actions don't match their claimed intentions.  Hypocrites is what they were.  

What is happening to the Baratheons now is proof that they are not the equal of the Targaryens.  The Targaryens fought among themselves during a few times for control of the throne.  Well guess what?  The Baratheons can't even have one (ONE, 1) smooth transition.  Their very first one and they couldn't get it right.  The first one they had and little brother got it into his handsome head to take the throne from his older brother.  This is not different from what the Blackfyres did.  The Baratheons do not hold the moral high ground here.  So Aerys burned people.  Guess what?  So does the guy that many AntiTargaryens worship.  Stannis Baratheon.  This man at this point in his career has probably burned more people than Aerys had during his reign.   Setting aside the term "villain" and still these guys undoubtedly did more harm than good.  

Sure.  No side is all good.  Neither side is all bad either.  I think this is a lesson in keeping the status quo.  It may not be perfect but as long as the land is prospering, the peasants are living well, and there is peace, it's best not to mess with it.  Starting a rebellion to save the lives of two men whose families were conspiring to overthrow their king was a very bad decision.  So yeah, even if villain is not the right term, these men were harmful to the kingdom.  

[Universal Sword Donor]

7 hours ago, wia said:

A council of regents to curb his awful behaviour or announcing limits on the kings ultimate judicial authority is pretty much the same as deposing him in terms of the actual power he'd have since most of his decisions were awful. 

And, seeing how he was mad, anyone who knows him would be able to predict that he won't take it, will resist it and it will, most likely, ultimately lead to his death or imprisonment.

Whether by actually deposing or by a little bit more subtle means, Rhaegar was planning to get rid of Aerys before the war. 

Did the magma carta depose English kings?

[Universal Sword Donor]

3 hours ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

Ned, Robert, and Jon Arryn may not have been villains but it is fact that they took a prospering kingdom and turned it into a fractured land that's now heavily indebted to a foreign bank.  They made things worse.  So Rickard, Robert, Brandon, and Ned wanted to do it for the children.  I assume because they were put off by the way the Lannisters dealt with the Reynes and how Aerys dealt with the Darklyns.  Very well.  Their positive motives aside, the results were disastrous.  Many thousands of children died and got orphaned because of the rebellion.  And that's really Robert being a hypocrite because he didn't support his own bastards.  He was spraying seed all over the place and couldn't be bothered to take care of his own children.  Brandon too was spraying his seeds everywhere.  It's a fine notion but their actions don't match their claimed intentions.  Hypocrites is what they were.  

What is happening to the Baratheons now is proof that they are not the equal of the Targaryens.  The Targaryens fought among themselves during a few times for control of the throne.  Well guess what?  The Baratheons can't even have one (ONE, 1) smooth transition.  Their very first one and they couldn't get it right.  The first one they had and little brother got it into his handsome head to take the throne from his older brother.  This is not different from what the Blackfyres did.  The Baratheons do not hold the moral high ground here.  So Aerys burned people.  Guess what?  So does the guy that many AntiTargaryens worship.  Stannis Baratheon.  This man at this point in his career has probably burned more people than Aerys had during his reign.   Setting aside the term "villain" and still these guys undoubtedly did more harm than good.  

Sure.  No side is all good.  Neither side is all bad either.  I think this is a lesson in keeping the status quo.  It may not be perfect but as long as the land is prospering, the peasants are living well, and there is peace, it's best not to mess with it.  Starting a rebellion to save the lives of two men whose families were conspiring to overthrow their king was a very bad decision.  So yeah, even if villain is not the right term, these men were harmful to the kingdom.  

Lol. 

"Imperfect men should be executed because of a crazy man so the kingdom doesnt split. It's the only way."

"Better a few innocents be executed than one crazy man overthrown."

"Killing guiltless nobles is the better part of valor."

"innocence and naïveté will always lose to kangaroo courts and insane judges."

or my favorite Shakespeare quote: "Fuck those guys. I don't understand basic civics OR ethics."

- Act 1, Othellocop

[Universal Sword Donor]

7 hours ago, wia said:

Telling someone who only eats food that contains sugar to stop eating sugar is telling them to stop eating.
A reasonable council of regents for a reasonable king would not be restricting at all, a reasonable council of regents for a an absolutely crazy king would formally be restricting but in practice would be deposing.

A council of regents for Aerys in particular, a king who removed tongues of people who called him a figurehead and made major political decisions to spite his Hand who was better than him at ruling, would effectively destroy him.

The House would maintain the throne if Rhaegar formally deposed him and became a king as well, so there's no difference at all.

 

Restricting Aerys by denying him the right to execute people for no cause is not making him a figurehead. That's a ridiculous thing to opine

[corbon]

not necessary, replied to the end of a page, not the end of the thread.

Suffice it to say, no evidence has been offered in this thread of actual acts by Rhaegar to depose Aerys.