Jump to content
divica

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

Recommended Posts

As we all know history is written by the winners and aerys was a perfect scapegoat to justify their actions.

I am not denying that aerys was a bad person or that he had some mental problems. But the truth is that all his paranoia was justified. We know that some strange marriages were being planned through westeros, that he had allienated tywin so it is possible that he ploted against aerys some time during his reign, it is believed that rhaegar tried to depose him, not to mention what happened at dukensdale… It is hard to criticize a king being paranoid taking into account all that was happening…

Now moving along to the rebelion. We don t know what happened between rhaegar and lyanna neither why they disapeared (as long as we know) for some months. What we do know is that brandon apeared in KL wanting to kill rhaegar. So aerys actions in imprisioning him makes perfect sense. The problem is what happens next...

So if instead of assuming that aerys and his advisers were supercrazy and murdered 2 starks (1 of them without reason) and then ordered jon arryn to kill 2 men he considered as sons without good reason and expected him to obey what if we try to justify his actions.

Lets take a leap and assume the north and the vale were indeed conspiring to put robert on the throne. So Brandon as the heir would know about the plot and might even talked about it with his closest friends (some of them went with him to KL obviously). So after being imprisioned and threatened with death some of brandon's companions might have tried to bargain their freedom by telling the king about the northern plot. Giving that everybody else ended up dead it would make sense if it was brandon's squire that talked and ended up surviving because of that...

So getting back to the story. After hearing about the conspiracy aerys naturally called the northern lords that he knew were involved (their fathers) and killed them how he saw fit. Afterwards, like he was paranoid he would want to kill robert (the supposed new king) and ned (robert's best friend and old enough to know what his familly was scheming). Then given the relation between jon arryn and these 2 it would make sense that some people wold think that he also was a traitor but could aerys kill jon arryn without any proof? Has aerys ever killed a lord as important as jon arryn without reason? (he even imprisoned brandon instead of simply killing him)… So what if he sent jon arryn to kill ned and robert in order to show his loalty to his king and that he wasn t part of the plot to depose him?

And here jon starts telling his version of history. That the king was mad and paranoid and had no reason to do what he did… And given the fact that aerys wasn t liked and was cruel and slightly paranoid who would believe the king over jon arryn and his supporters? And if aerys had already killed a lot of the people that already knew about the conspiracy it was even better.

And the interesting thing is that jon arryn didn t even need to be part of the northern conspiracy. As long as jon didn t believe aerys when he told him that the starks were traitors he would act as he did (and given aerys personality who would blame him for not believing in him?). My biggest (and maybe only) problem with all this  is that any conspiracy (with or without jon arryn) would always need to convince robert to rebel against the targs...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow! Really? I mean... just wow!

Aerys asked for their heads it is well known and he had already killed Ned'a father and older brother instead of giving them the option of NW and did so in a most brutal fashion. 

Aerys was the victim, yes, poor widdle Aerys, usurped by evil dogs... or deer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, divica said:

We don t know what happened between rhaegar and lyanna neither why they disapeared (as long as we know) for some months.

Well, unless they both were swept away by snarks or something, it doesn't really matter whether it was a kidnapping or they eloped. 'Cause those would be one and the same in Westeros. And it sure as hell appeared as kidnapping, so the blame is on Rhaegar.

Let's say they were conspiring and let's say that's why Aerys killed them. Now, how rightful is Aerys' rule? His ancestors winning it by conquest doesn't really make him a good guy in that situation, does it? We could always look at it as kingdoms plotting to get their independence back, independence that they did not willingly give up. Which makes Arerys the bad guy again. 

I think it's not that much of a who was the good guy and who was the bad guy. It's a matter of Aerys being bad at his job and not having dragons to demotivate kingdoms from rebelling and then he and his family gave several major reasons for various houses to rebel. 

4 hours ago, divica said:

My biggest (and maybe only) problem with all this  is that any conspiracy (with or without jon arryn) would always need to convince robert to rebel against the targs...

Robert is like the one person in all this who required zero convincing.

I don't think Jon Arryn would have to tell any versions of the story. The fact that Aerys was mad was well known and whether there was a plot to overthrow him or not, it wouldn't matter to Ned or Robert. Just as it didn't matter for Robb whether Ned actually tried to overthrow Joffrey (and ironically he did).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, divica said:

As we all know history is written by the winners

I always think this trope is overuse, history are written by historians/Maesters with enough resources and evidence,  today's history even the losers are being given a light because of materials the historians have, people who use this trope are actually bias.

 

Back to the topic.

 

6 hours ago, divica said:

he had allienated tywin so it is possible that he ploted against aerys some time during his reign

Aerys is jealous of Tywin because he gets credit for running the realm and he lusted for his wife, I doubt he plotted on anything aside from trying to marry Cersei to Rhaegar.


 

6 hours ago, divica said:

it is believed that rhaegar tried to depose him

I believe Rhaegar tried this when it's clear to him that Aerys has descent into madness which is not good for the whole realm, but still it added more to his madness, but it's kind of fault by Varys.

 

 

6 hours ago, divica said:

Lets take a leap and assume the north and the vale were indeed conspiring to put robert on the throne. So Brandon as the heir would know about the plot and might even talked about it with his closest friends (some of them went with him to KL obviously). So after being imprisioned and threatened with death some of brandon's companions might have tried to bargain their freedom by telling the king about the northern plot. Giving that everybody else ended up dead it would make sense if it was brandon's squire that talked and ended up surviving because of that...

This is just pure assumption, you should at least give an evidence to back this, personally I think if Aerys know of such plot he would have spread it around already instead of being silent, it will weaken the plot and it's supporters and give Aerys a justified reason to prosecute them, Varys will also know at least some hints of this if it we're true.

 

7 hours ago, divica said:

Afterwards, like he was paranoid he would want to kill robert (the supposed new king)

The reason he wants Robert is because he is Lyanna's betrothed, If there ever was a plot going on to crown a new king it will be Rhaegar, he is loved by lords and smallfolk, he is intelligent and handsome, I think Robert will support him as well if he didn't abduct Lyanna, Robert to everyone is just the lord of stormlands, his claim to Iron throne is weak as well.

 

7 hours ago, divica said:

(he even imprisoned brandon instead of simply killing him)… So what if he sent jon arryn to kill ned and robert in order to show his loalty to his king and that he wasn t part of the plot to depose him?

Why would he just simply kill him? Imprisoning him is a logical way, Maegor the cruel will probably to the same.

 

7 hours ago, divica said:

And here jon starts telling his version of history. That the king was mad and paranoid and had no reason to do what he did… And given the fact that aerys wasn t liked and was cruel and slightly paranoid who would believe the king over jon arryn and his supporters? And if aerys had already killed a lot of the people that already knew about the conspiracy it was even better.

And the interesting thing is that jon arryn didn t even need to be part of the northern conspiracy. As long as jon didn t believe aerys when he told him that the starks were traitors he would act as he did (and given aerys personality who would blame him for not believing in him?). My biggest (and maybe only) problem with all this  is that any conspiracy (with or without jon arryn) would always need to convince robert to rebel against the targs...

 Sorry, can you clarify this? I'm confused.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“The Queen of Hearts, she made some tarts, all on a hot summer's day. The Knave of Hearts, he stole those tarts. The mad Queen said, "Off with his head! Off with his head! Off with his head!" Well... that's too bad... no more heads to cut.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the world is black and white enough to call either side a villain over the other. I feel like the rebels are justified in what they did. I mean sure Brandon turning up at the Red Keep and telling Rhaegar to "come out and die" was a pretty stupid move, and Aerys was completely justified in arresting him, but he then killed both Brandon and his innocent father without a fair trial, and then called for the head of the next Lord of Winterfell, which would've left the Starks almost extinct, all because of a mans paranoia.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, divica said:

As we all know history is written by the winners and aerys was a perfect scapegoat to justify their actions.

I am not denying that aerys was a bad person or that he had some mental problems. But the truth is that all his paranoia was justified. We know that some strange marriages were being planned through westeros, that he had allienated tywin so it is possible that he ploted against aerys some time during his reign, it is believed that rhaegar tried to depose him, not to mention what happened at dukensdale… It is hard to criticize a king being paranoid taking into account all that was happening…

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

10 hours ago, divica said:

Now moving along to the rebelion. We don t know what happened between rhaegar and lyanna neither why they disapeared (as long as we know) for some months. What we do know is that brandon apeared in KL wanting to kill rhaegar. So aerys actions in imprisioning him makes perfect sense. The problem is what happens next...

No dispute here

10 hours ago, divica said:

So if instead of assuming that aerys and his advisers were supercrazy and murdered 2 starks (1 of them without reason) and then ordered jon arryn to kill 2 men he considered as sons without good reason and expected him to obey what if we try to justify his actions.

Lets take a leap and assume the north and the vale were indeed conspiring to put robert on the throne. So Brandon as the heir would know

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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, divica said:

We know that some strange marriages were being planned through westeros,

There was nothing strange about these marriages, Aegon the Conquerer's sister-wives arranged marriages between great houses of regions (including one between House Stark and Arryn) and so did Queen Alysanne Targaryen. House Stark, Tully and Arryn were only doing what the first Targs tried to establish. That Aerys thought it a threat is just further evidence of his paranoia.

Edited by sweetsunray

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

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.  

Exactly.

2 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

There was nothing strange about these marriages, Aegon the Conquerer's sister-wives arranged marriages between great houses of regions (including one between House Stark and Arryn) and so did Queen Alysanne Targaryen. House Stark, Tully and Arryn were only doing what the first Targs tried to establish.

This x 1,000. 

Seriously, an Aerys the Great Appreciation Thread was the only one missing among all the great ones we’ve had lately. /s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, divica said:

snip

Meh -- good, bad, heros, villains, it's all relative in Martin-world. Even the most noble hero has a dark side and the most vile villain has a good side. Kind of like life.

6 hours ago, wia said:

Well, unless they both were swept away by snarks or something, it doesn't really matter whether it was a kidnapping or they eloped. 'Cause those would be one and the same in Westeros. And it sure as hell appeared as kidnapping, so the blame is on Rhaegar.

 Or, Rhaegar had nothing at all do to with the kidnapping, was never at the Tower of Joy, was never with Lyanna… The whole story is a lie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, divica said:

As we all know history is written by the winners and aerys was a perfect scapegoat to justify their actions.

I am not denying that aerys was a bad person or that he had some mental problems. But the truth is that all his paranoia was justified. We know that some strange marriages were being planned through westeros, that he had allienated tywin so it is possible that he ploted against aerys some time during his reign, it is believed that rhaegar tried to depose him, not to mention what happened at dukensdale… It is hard to criticize a king being paranoid taking into account all that was happening…

Now moving along to the rebelion. We don t know what happened between rhaegar and lyanna neither why they disapeared (as long as we know) for some months. What we do know is that brandon apeared in KL wanting to kill rhaegar. So aerys actions in imprisioning him makes perfect sense. The problem is what happens next...

So if instead of assuming that aerys and his advisers were supercrazy and murdered 2 starks (1 of them without reason) and then ordered jon arryn to kill 2 men he considered as sons without good reason and expected him to obey what if we try to justify his actions.

Lets take a leap and assume the north and the vale were indeed conspiring to put robert on the throne. So Brandon as the heir would know about the plot and might even talked about it with his closest friends (some of them went with him to KL obviously). So after being imprisioned and threatened with death some of brandon's companions might have tried to bargain their freedom by telling the king about the northern plot. Giving that everybody else ended up dead it would make sense if it was brandon's squire that talked and ended up surviving because of that...

So getting back to the story. After hearing about the conspiracy aerys naturally called the northern lords that he knew were involved (their fathers) and killed them how he saw fit. Afterwards, like he was paranoid he would want to kill robert (the supposed new king) and ned (robert's best friend and old enough to know what his familly was scheming). Then given the relation between jon arryn and these 2 it would make sense that some people wold think that he also was a traitor but could aerys kill jon arryn without any proof? Has aerys ever killed a lord as important as jon arryn without reason? (he even imprisoned brandon instead of simply killing him)… So what if he sent jon arryn to kill ned and robert in order to show his loalty to his king and that he wasn t part of the plot to depose him?

And here jon starts telling his version of history. That the king was mad and paranoid and had no reason to do what he did… And given the fact that aerys wasn t liked and was cruel and slightly paranoid who would believe the king over jon arryn and his supporters? And if aerys had already killed a lot of the people that already knew about the conspiracy it was even better.

And the interesting thing is that jon arryn didn t even need to be part of the northern conspiracy. As long as jon didn t believe aerys when he told him that the starks were traitors he would act as he did (and given aerys personality who would blame him for not believing in him?). My biggest (and maybe only) problem with all this  is that any conspiracy (with or without jon arryn) would always need to convince robert to rebel against the targs...

I believe Rickard Stark, Robert Baratheon, and Brandon Stark were conspiring to put Robert on the throne.  To me, that makes them the bad guys.  They were plotting to remove their lawful king from his throne.  That was treason and as such, Aerys was within his rights to dispose of Rickard and Brandon as he saw fit.  The Starks got what they deserved.  Now, if Ned knew about the plot and didn't go to the king to reveal his family's nefarious intentions, then he too deserved death.  I just wished Aerys had gone about it more subtly.  Like luring all of them into a trap and then killing them all.  He should have waited until those men were in one place and then killed them all.  

6 hours ago, wia said:

Let's say they were conspiring and let's say that's why Aerys killed them. Now, how rightful is Aerys' rule? His ancestors winning it by conquest doesn't really make him a good guy in that situation, does it? We could always look at it as kingdoms plotting to get their independence back, independence that they did not willingly give up. Which makes Arerys the bad guy again. 

Uh-huh, and how do you think the Starks gained control of the north?  It ain't by asking nicely, that's for sure.  It was done through bloody conquest.  The Starks were much more brutal than the Targaryens.  So the Targaryen monarch have as much or more right to rule than the old kings of winter ever did.  The Starks bent their knees to the Targaryens.  Their rebellion against Aerys was wrong.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

There was nothing strange about these marriages, Aegon the Conquerer's sister-wives arranged marriages between great houses of regions (including one between House Stark and Arryn) and so did Queen Alysanne Targaryen. House Stark, Tully and Arryn were only doing what the first Targs tried to establish. That Aerys thought it a threat is just further evidence of his paranoia.

No, it's further evidence of Rickard's and Robert's disloyalty.  A loyal subject does not do anything to put himself above his king.  And those political alliances would have allowed those conspirators to threaten their king.  The Starks and the Baratheons were not loyal subjects.  That much can be said.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, John Suburbs said:

 Or, Rhaegar had nothing at all do to with the kidnapping, was never at the Tower of Joy, was never with Lyanna… The whole story is a lie.

I personally like that one a lot. But that's not the one that is popular on this forum and that's not what I though OP meant. So that's why I didn't mention it.

 

49 minutes ago, Geo Da Ray said:

Uh-huh, and how do you think the Starks gained control of the north?  It ain't by asking nicely, that's for sure.  It was done through bloody conquest.  The Starks were much more brutal than the Targaryens.  So the Targaryen monarch have as much or more right to rule than the old kings of winter ever did.  

I wasn't really saying that Stark control of the North is more rightful than Aerys being the king though. Both Starks and Targaryens has as much right to rule as they physically can ensure by either force or negotiation or both. 

 

47 minutes ago, Geo Da Ray said:

 The Starks bent their knees to the Targaryens.  Their rebellion against Aerys was wrong.   

Yes, 'cause when you're doing something under a threat of violence and death, it's totally legally and morally binding. :rolleyes:

Edited by wia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

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

It does come up though.

Quote

A Feast for Crows - Jaime I
Rhaegar had put his hand on Jaime's shoulder. "When this battle's done I mean to call a council. Changes will be made. I meant to do it long ago, but . . . well, it does no good to speak of roads not taken. We shall talk when I return."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Geo Da Ray said:

No, it's further evidence of Rickard's and Robert's disloyalty.  A loyal subject does not do anything to put himself above his king.  And those political alliances would have allowed those conspirators to threaten their king.  The Starks and the Baratheons were not loyal subjects.  That much can be said.  

Those arranged marriages weren't forced onto the great houses, but mediated by the queens, because they realized that one way to promote lasting peace between regions that used to be kingdoms fighting each other was to have prior enemies wed one another. The king didn't order houses whom to wed. None of them ever did. So, no, you are completely wrong in that kings decided who great houses should marry and that loyal subjects would marry by decree of a king. As if the Targs didn't have issues enough getting the realm to reconcile with their own incestuous marriages.

The point is that Targs promoted and mediated and saw such  inter-great-house marriages as beneficial. Those marriages did not just become normalized. They are the very foundation why North, the Vale and the Riverlands already have historical family ties. Two centuries later, the Targs did not need to mediate anymore, since there was peace and those Great Houses already had historical family ties.

Aerys's paranoya against something that had been normalized and his disregard of judicial proceedings is what causes the rebellion. Replace Aerys with any other non-crazy Targ king and no rebellion would have happened, even if that non-crazy king had a son eloping with Lyanna. Such a king would have mediated and offered compensation to any insult done to any of his wardens.

Edited by sweetsunray

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, King Aegon I Targaryen said:

I don't think the world is black and white enough to call either side a villain over the other. I feel like the rebels are justified in what they did. I mean sure Brandon turning up at the Red Keep and telling Rhaegar to "come out and die" was a pretty stupid move, and Aerys was completely justified in arresting him, but he then killed both Brandon and his innocent father without a fair trial, and then called for the head of the next Lord of Winterfell, which would've left the Starks almost extinct, all because of a mans paranoia.  

I take it you don't believe Rickard, Jon, and Robert were plotting to overthrow the Targaryens.  I do.  That puts the Starks, Arryns, and the Baratheons in the wrong.  That is treason. 

The kingdom was prosperous.  There was peace.  To try to remove the Targaryens from power was wrong.  And what exactly did the Usurper and his mangy dogs do after taking the kingdom?  They beggared the realm.  Westeros has never had it this bad since the last long night.  The combination of Baratheon, Lannister, Arryn, Tully, and Stark being in charge did not serve the best interest of Westeros.  Those idiots destroyed Westeros.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Corvo the Crow said:

Wow! Really? I mean... just wow!

Aerys asked for their heads it is well known and he had already killed Ned'a father and older brother instead of giving them the option of NW and did so in a most brutal fashion. 

Aerys was the victim, yes, poor widdle Aerys, usurped by evil dogs... or deer.

If rickard and brandon were conspiring against aerys he had the right to punish them. And that talk about the fair trial is kind of weird.

If some nobles plan to kill the king given aerys personality and personal history what was he suposed to do? Hells how many fair trials have we seen in asoiaf? Is it really so strange that aerys had a mock trial for people conspiring against him.

Then given that robert was their supposed new king and ned was not only a grown up stark but robert's best friend it makes sense that aerys would demand their heads. 

Was aerys brutal? YES. Was he within his rights? yes!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, divica said:

If rickard and brandon were conspiring against aerys he had the right to punish them. And that talk about the fair trial is kind of weird.

If some nobles plan to kill the king given aerys personality and personal history what was he suposed to do? Hells how many fair trials have we seen in asoiaf? Is it really so strange that aerys had a mock trial for people conspiring against him.

Then given that robert was their supposed new king and ned was not only a grown up stark but robert's best friend it makes sense that aerys would demand their heads. 

Was aerys brutal? YES. Was he within his rights? yes!

Where's the evidence that Rickard, Robert and Ned, Jon etc were conspiring against Aerys? Marriage arrangements in the same line that Targ queens had normalized two centuries before already?

Brandon was a hot head, challenging Rhaegar to a duel, after Rhaegar kidnapped Brandon's sister. That such a thing could not go without some form of punishment is to be expected, but a hotheaded heir's reaction does not make a conspiracy.

Aerys demanded Rickard to come to KL, and Rickard did so. Conspiritors and rebels would not do so. See Robb.

And it's total bull that a king is free to execute people he accuses without a trial. With Joffrey you have more than an alleged conspiracy. You actually have a king ending up dead from poison, a death witnessed by hundreds of people. Tyrion is accused of it, and he gets a trial and even a fight between champions. Aegon II was poisoned, and yes, the conspiritors had a trial and plenty of them got to choose to join the NW.  Egg had a Baratheon rebellion on his hands because of an arranged marriage falling through. He appeased the insulted Great House via compensations. Mad Aerys pretty much tried to rule like Maegor the Cruel, without having a royal army and without having dragons. Do not mistake feudalism for totalitarian kings of the 16th century.

 

Edited by sweetsunray

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sweetsunray said:

Those arranged marriages weren't forced onto the great houses, but mediated by the queens, because they realized that one way to promote lasting peace between regions that used to be kingdoms fighting each other was to have prior enemies wed one another. The king didn't order houses whom to wed. None of them ever did. So, no, you are completely wrong in that kings decided who great houses should marry and that loyal subjects would marry by decree of a king.

 

Quote

The World of Ice and Fire - The North: The Lords of Winterfell
Whether anti-Targaryen feelings were made worse by Queen Rhaenys Targaryen's efforts to knit together the new, single realm with marriages between the great houses is left to the reader to consider. That Torrhen Stark's daughter was wed to the young and ill-fated Lord of the Vale is wellknown; it was one of the many peace- binding marriages forged by Rhaenys. But there are letters preserved at the Citadel suggesting that Stark accepted these arrangements only after much protest, and that the bride's brothers refused to attend the wedding entirely.

A guy who bent his knee to avoid a war with dragons protesting a lot about a marriage arrangement does not sound unforced to me.
And, seeing how it was the only Andal marriage for Starks that we know of, they seemingly weren't up for a repeat performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, wia said:

Well, unless they both were swept away by snarks or something, it doesn't really matter whether it was a kidnapping or they eloped. 'Cause those would be one and the same in Westeros. And it sure as hell appeared as kidnapping, so the blame is on Rhaegar.

Let's say they were conspiring and let's say that's why Aerys killed them. Now, how rightful is Aerys' rule? His ancestors winning it by conquest doesn't really make him a good guy in that situation, does it? We could always look at it as kingdoms plotting to get their independence back, independence that they did not willingly give up. Which makes Arerys the bad guy again. 

I think it's not that much of a who was the good guy and who was the bad guy. It's a matter of Aerys being bad at his job and not having dragons to demotivate kingdoms from rebelling and then he and his family gave several major reasons for various houses to rebel. 

Robert is like the one person in all this who required zero convincing.

I don't think Jon Arryn would have to tell any versions of the story. The fact that Aerys was mad was well known and whether there was a plot to overthrow him or not, it wouldn't matter to Ned or Robert. Just as it didn't matter for Robb whether Ned actually tried to overthrow Joffrey (and ironically he did).

I don t think que can judge  what happened between rhaegar and lyanna. We don t know what happened and several scenarios fit with what we know.

Then as the lords swore fealty to aerys they recognize him as the rightfull ruller. If they disagreed they shouldn t have sworn oaths...

And even if aerys was bad at his job did he give reason to the high lords to forsworn their vows? shouldn t they have joined to make aerys abdicate the throne to rhaegar or viserys (with a regent)? what right did they have to depose of all targs?

From what we know of ned how hipocritical would he need to be to rebel because the king killed his familly because they wanted to rebel? However I don t remeber ned ever saying he fought a war to avenge his familly but I am probably wrong (I remember him saying he fought to save lyanna and nothing else)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×