Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
BigBoss1

Why weren’t Robert’s brothers princes

Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, frenin said:

Evidence of that?? Dragonstone reeks of a dauphiné and we never see anyone ruling at them, or even holding a council. The lords of the narrow sea are sworn to the Crownlands until Robert set  them apart.  Even when Rhaena and Maegor actually ruled  the island, the lords of the narrow sea did not answer to them. The title and the island are given to every king's heir apparent...

It seems to stem from the Conquest with Driftmark & Claw Isle as Aegon's direct vassals, with Stonedance & Sharp Point as (lesser) allies. They, among others, presumably always were thereafter bannermen to the Prince(ss) of Dragonstone - or at least, after Jaehaerys I formalised the title & position with Aemon.

Quote

A dozen lesser lords, bannermen and vassals to Dragonstone, sat at the black council as well: Celtigar of Claw Isle, Staunton of Rook’s Rest, Massey of Stonedance, Bar Emmon of Sharp Point, and Darklyn of Duskendale amongst them.

Interestingly enough, this implies that (other) mainland lords such as the Darklyns & Stauntons once were sworn to Dragonstone, but this was discontinued at some stage (most likely with the Dance or its aftermath).

Anyway, the lands & incomes of Dragonstone (mainly by way of its vassals), would be the direct, hard power base for Rhaenyra (well, after dragons), future Daeron II, Rhaegar, & Stannis against their kingly rivals.

Whilst I disagree with the level of punishment (more retribution), Rhaenyra was acting with the authority as ruler of Dragonstone & overlord of Vaemond (by way of his lordly uncle) when she had Daemon execute him. Hence, his kin going over her head & appealing directly to the king in a (vain) attempt for their own justice from her judgement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, frenin said:

I don't think Robert cared a bit about Joffrey, the very fact that Cersei got to name all her children shows that. But Queens don't adopt the name of their husbands, there is quite literally no name that adds more power than the royal one.  That's a well established, even during the war of the 5 Kings, all the Queens went to their families's name. Cersei is just following the rule here.

Oh he totally didn't. He cared about women and alcohol for the most part. But notice no one else was scandalized by Joff being so Lannisterized. Stannis and Renly don't give a f***. All of these rules are just not in the books.

Bold: It working out that way =/= hard rule. The books proper are written as stand-alone and they don't go into that so it's not important otherwise it'd have been mentioned. GRRM's usually pretty clear when something is a hard rule (oaths, guest right, etc) because he wants you to know when the character breaks those few rules and strict conventions.

Did you actually just say with a straight face "Cersei is just following the rule here"?

This presumed rule undermines other female characters choosing their names for the circumstance (clearly no rules for them) and detracts a great deal from Cersei's Lannisterness if that choice is removed. Rules, rules, rules make for boring writing.

48 minutes ago, frenin said:

There is no debt  to pay nor were they denied anything, nor were the Lannister's keep, Robert could do as he wanted with them and it all happened 13 years ago. More than enough time for them. 

 

 

18 hours ago, frenin said:

I doubt Robert gave a damn about what Tywin and Cersei thought about the matter, had he ever listened to them it's unlikely that Storm's End and Daragonstone, keeps which by rights should pass to Robert's sons, would ever be granted to Stannis and Renly.

I disagree with "which by rights should pass to Robert's sons" and agree with your most recent statement of "Robert could do as he wanted with them". The Lannisters view Joff, Tommen and Myrcella as Lannisters, not as Baratheons. Thus Storm's End and Dragonstone going to Stannis and Renly removes them from their sphere of influence, at least until Joff becomes king. But they apparently didn't care as it never comes up with the Lannisters or anyone else for that matter which is why I disagree with your initial statement that there was some sort of Westeros rule about them going by rights to Robert's kids. I don't think it tells us anything about the Lannisters' influence over Robert in itself.

The Lannisters say they pay their debts when they mean to exact revenge which they do a lot. Kinda their thing. It's often a threat. If they felt they had some sort of entitlement to DS or SE through the kids, that'd be a plot/character thing. But it's not.

 

54 minutes ago, frenin said:

There is no competition , during Daeron's time, there were plenty of princes, just as happened during Jaeharys's. There is only competition when the sucesion is unclear, Joffrey was Robert's heir apparent. Stannis and Renly going by a Princeling title wouldn't change that... And as they showed if they wanted to contest  Robert's will, them being just lords would not stop them. They'd have the swords and the claim, going by lord or Prince is pretty much irrelevant. If Tywin wouldn't want competition  he would insist  on them not being turn into highlords.

About them being Princed and then unprinced, sure there is nothing in the books, one way or the other but given that the brothers and sons of pretenders were referred as princes by their supporters it's incredibly unlikely that no one called Renly and Stannis princes when Robert actually got to be king, even if Robert didn't care about them, they would still be called Princes... because they were princes. I doubt that wither Stannis or Renly gave a damn about that, in fact i doubt anyone cared about that title. It's not projecting, Rickon and Bran are considered princes the very moment Robb get to be crowned, the same goes for Balon's children and Daemon Blackfyre's.

High Lord =/= Prince. Biiiiiiggggggg difference. And inbred Targs don't compare well to Baratheon/Lannister or any two-family arrangement. The Targs are still keepin' it all in the family. There is competition. The Lannisters aren't liked. Tywin's thing is fear and power. His father nearly lost Casterly Rock with his weakness and it was only Tywin who saved it. He wants no questions left as to who holds that power. Rains of Castamere and all that. Again, the characterization doesn't hold up. Bold: except Stannis and Renly are still mighty useful in a military capacity should anyone get ideas which means they need folks to rule. They say as much in the books especially in having Stannis at DS.

Some of your second paragraph here makes no sense. Calling someone a prince because they are princes, but it's no big deal in Westeros (!!!!) and Stannis and Renly don't care but then cared enough to go to war and try to kill each other for the kingship? Nope. More huge characterization problems here.

Bran and Rickon aren't princes without Robb's go-ahead. Robb was an unmarried kid himself when crowned and Bran was a little kid left in charge of Winterfell. It was a good idea as Bran needed extra weight attached to him. For Robert, he was f***ing Robert Baratheon married to Tywin's Lannister's daughter who got pregnant quickly. Not necessary for Robert to name them princes. I see your logic, but in Westeros, they roll how they (GRRM) want and it'd be there if they were unprinced.

This is how it works:

Robb: Bran is now a prince and my heir.

The North: Ok.

Robert: Stannis and Renly aren't princes. That's only for my kids.

Westeros: Ok.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Lord Corlys Velaryon said:

It seems to stem from the Conquest with Driftmark & Claw Isle as Aegon's direct vassals, with Stonedance & Sharp Point as (lesser) allies. They, among others, presumably always were thereafter bannermen to the Prince(ss) of Dragonstone - or at least, after Jaehaerys I formalised the title & position with Aemon.

Interestingly enough, this implies that (other) mainland lords such as the Darklyns & Stauntons once were sworn to Dragonstone, but this was discontinued at some stage (most likely with the Dance or its aftermath).

Anyway, the lands & incomes of Dragonstone (mainly by way of its vassals), would be the direct, hard power base for Rhaenyra (well, after dragons), future Daeron II, Rhaegar, & Stannis against their kingly rivals.

Whilst I disagree with the level of punishment (more retribution), Rhaenyra was acting with the authority as ruler of Dragonstone & overlord of Vaemond (by way of his lordly uncle) when she had Daemon execute him. Hence, his kin going over her head & appealing directly to the king in a (vain) attempt for their own justice from her judgement.

Oh, you're actually right here. Dragonstone did have bannermen, interestingly enough. @Lord Varys, you were right here.

 

Still,  Dragonstone works more as a dauphiné than as a principality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Lollygag said:

Oh he totally didn't. He cared about women and alcohol for the most part. But notice no one else was scandalized by Joff being so Lannisterized. Stannis and Renly don't give a f***. All of these rules are just not in the books.

They are in the books, you only have to look in them and see that kids are raised as member of their father's side. Even Sansa is more Stark than Tully. Cersei's kids being so Lannisterized is just a very important red flag about Robert's neglect... Neglect that his brothers would have long ago to cope up with.

 

5 hours ago, Lollygag said:

 Bold: It working out that way =/= hard rule. The books proper are written as stand-alone and they don't go into that so it's not important otherwise it'd have been mentioned. GRRM's usually pretty clear when something is a hard rule (oaths, guest right, etc) because he wants you to know when the character breaks those few rules and strict conventions.

We are yet to see a Queen breaking said convention, btw you can search it if you want. In fact Selyse is the only exception but all the other Queens are called by their house name, not their husband's.  Quite contrary to the Olenna Tyrells, Cat Starks or Lysa Arryns who def adopt their husbands names.

 

 

5 hours ago, Lollygag said:

 Did you actually just say with a straight face "Cersei is just following the rule here"?

Well... she is.

 

5 hours ago, Lollygag said:

 This presumed rule undermines other female characters choosing their names for the circumstance (clearly no rules for them) and detracts a great deal from Cersei's Lannisterness if that choice is removed. Rules, rules, rules make for boring writing.

It makes a more coherent writing, there is a limit for Cersei's Lannisterness, she can't do whatever she wants because she is a Lannister, i don't know what is the boring in that.

 

 

5 hours ago, Lollygag said:

I disagree with "which by rights should pass to Robert's sons" and agree with your most recent statement of "Robert could do as he wanted with them". The Lannisters view Joff, Tommen and Myrcella as Lannisters, not as Baratheons. Thus Storm's End and Dragonstone going to Stannis and Renly removes them from their sphere of influence, at least until Joff becomes king. But they apparently didn't care as it never comes up with the Lannisters or anyone else for that matter which is why I disagree with your initial statement that there was some sort of Westeros rule about them going by rights to Robert's kids. I don't think it tells us anything about the Lannisters' influence over Robert in itself.

The fact that they view the kids as Lannisters doesn't negate the fact that Dragonstone and Storm's End are juicy prizes for even a blind man, there are prizes that should go to Robert's heirs no matter how they are seen. I mean it's not that hard to see, the Lannisters would control the Realm, the Stormlands, the Westerlands and the Narrow sea. 

Martin himself says that Robert could keep those castles to himself btw.

 

 

5 hours ago, Lollygag said:

High Lord =/= Prince. Biiiiiiggggggg difference. And inbred Targs don't compare well to Baratheon/Lannister or any two-family arrangement. The Targs are still keepin' it all in the family. There is competition. The Lannisters aren't liked. Tywin's thing is fear and power. His father nearly lost Casterly Rock with his weakness and it was only Tywin who saved it. He wants no questions left as to who holds that power. Rains of Castamere and all that. Again, the characterization doesn't hold up. Bold: except Stannis and Renly are still mighty useful in a military capacity should anyone get ideas which means they need folks to rule. They say as much in the books especially in having Stannis at DS.

There is no difference in this case really, what matters is if you're close family to the King, if you're you can with whatever name you want to call yourself, it would make no matter.  The Targs also married a lot  with other nobility, during Daeron 2' days, his four sons were married to other houses, as were his  grandkids. It made no matter then, i don't know why it should matter now. Would Joffrey and Renly being princes would result in war?? As we saw, the only thing that mattered is that he was Robert's brother. 

Btw, Renly received Storm's End at 8, he was not  mighty useful in any capacity.

 

5 hours ago, Lollygag said:

 Some of your second paragraph here makes no sense. Calling someone a prince because they are princes, but it's no big deal in Westeros (!!!!) and Stannis and Renly don't care but then cared enough to go to war and try to kill each other for the kingship? Nope. More huge characterization problems here.

There is no problem here, unless you're telling me that being Prince has some privileges that neither of them could live out. They went to war over the crown, as Robert did before them.  That's a total false equivalence.

 

 

5 hours ago, Lollygag said:

 Bran and Rickon aren't princes without Robb's go-ahead. Robb was an unmarried kid himself when crowned and Bran was a little kid left in charge of Winterfell. It was a good idea as Bran needed extra weight attached to him. For Robert, he was f***ing Robert Baratheon married to Tywin's Lannister's daughter who got pregnant quickly. Not necessary for Robert to name them princes. I see your logic, but in Westeros, they roll how they (GRRM) want and it'd be there if they were unprinced.

Robert married Cersei a year after he got the crown. In the meantime are you telling me that no one referred to his brothers as princes?? It simply does not make sense.  Especially having in mind that one of the reasons Stannis was granted Dragonstone back in the day was for Robert to make clear that Stannis was his heir for the moment.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Lord Corlys Velaryon said:

It seems to stem from the Conquest with Driftmark & Claw Isle as Aegon's direct vassals, with Stonedance & Sharp Point as (lesser) allies. They, among others, presumably always were thereafter bannermen to the Prince(ss) of Dragonstone - or at least, after Jaehaerys I formalised the title & position with Aemon.

Before King Aenys granted his heir Aegon Dragonstone as his own seat, Aegon I and Aenys themselves used Dragonstone as royal residence. Maegor as 'Prince of Dragonstone' was just a nickname - he lived most of the time there with his mother while Aenys always accompanied Aegon on the royal progresses and was at his side. And one that when Aegon was on Dragonstone Aenys accompanied him and Visenya and Maegor were in KL during that time.

6 hours ago, Lord Corlys Velaryon said:

Interestingly enough, this implies that (other) mainland lords such as the Darklyns & Stauntons once were sworn to Dragonstone, but this was discontinued at some stage (most likely with the Dance or its aftermath).

I don't think that was the case - I expect that Dragonstone retained only those original vassals, i.e. the people sworn to Aegon before the Conquest and those who started the invasion with him.

Rhaenyra had all the Dragonstonian bannermen, of course, but also other lords from the Crownlands who had become Blacks during her years as Heir Apparent - the Rosbys, Stokeworths would belong to them in addition to the Darklyns, Stauntons, etc.

6 hours ago, Lord Corlys Velaryon said:

Anyway, the lands & incomes of Dragonstone (mainly by way of its vassals), would be the direct, hard power base for Rhaenyra (well, after dragons), future Daeron II, Rhaegar, & Stannis against their kingly rivals.

Exactly. The fact that Daeron II and Rhaegar both resided at Dragonstone and ruled those places makes it clear that this was a lordship in its own right, although one that the king traditionally granted his Heir Apparent. When there were no Princes of Dragonstone one imagines that royal castellans and the like ruled the lordship until a new Prince of Dragonstone was created. And this would have also been the case while the Prince of Dragonstone was too young to rule himself or while he resided at court.

But what we know about the history so far implies that most Princes of Dragonstone actually lived on the island - that is confirmed for Prince Aemon (until he became Master of Laws), Prince Baelon (until he became Hand), Viserys I, Rhaenyra, Daeron II, and Rhaegar. One imagines Baelor Breakspear also lived there before he was made Hand, that Rhaegel's household technically was there, that Aelor and Aelora settled there, that Maekar moved there after he was named Prince of Dragonstone, that Daeron had his residence there (and after him Aerion, if he was ever named Prince of Dragonstone), that Duncan technically lived there, that Jaehaerys II moved there with his sister-wife, and that even Aerys II and Rhaella lived there during the reign of their father.

Some perhaps only infrequently, others all the time because they preferred their own castle and court to the Red Keep, especially if they didn't like it there all that much.

Share this post


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

They are in the books, you only have to look in them and see that kids are raised as member of their father's side. Even Sansa is more Stark than Tully. Cersei's kids being so Lannisterized is just a very important red flag about Robert's neglect... Neglect that his brothers would have long ago to cope up with.

We are yet to see a Queen breaking said convention, btw you can search it if you want. In fact Selyse is the only exception but all the other Queens are called by their house name, not their husband's.  Quite contrary to the Olenna Tyrells, Cat Starks or Lysa Arryns who def adopt their husbands names.

Well... she is.

It makes a more coherent writing, there is a limit for Cersei's Lannisterness, she can't do whatever she wants because she is a Lannister, i don't know what is the boring in that.

The fact that they view the kids as Lannisters doesn't negate the fact that Dragonstone and Storm's End are juicy prizes for even a blind man, there are prizes that should go to Robert's heirs no matter how they are seen. I mean it's not that hard to see, the Lannisters would control the Realm, the Stormlands, the Westerlands and the Narrow sea. 

Martin himself says that Robert could keep those castles to himself btw.

There is no difference in this case really, what matters is if you're close family to the King, if you're you can with whatever name you want to call yourself, it would make no matter.  The Targs also married a lot  with other nobility, during Daeron 2' days, his four sons were married to other houses, as were his  grandkids. It made no matter then, i don't know why it should matter now. Would Joffrey and Renly being princes would result in war?? As we saw, the only thing that mattered is that he was Robert's brother. 

Btw, Renly received Storm's End at 8, he was not  mighty useful in any capacity.

There is no problem here, unless you're telling me that being Prince has some privileges that neither of them could live out. They went to war over the crown, as Robert did before them.  That's a total false equivalence.

Robert married Cersei a year after he got the crown. In the meantime are you telling me that no one referred to his brothers as princes?? It simply does not make sense.  Especially having in mind that one of the reasons Stannis was granted Dragonstone back in the day was for Robert to make clear that Stannis was his heir for the moment.

 

You just keep repeating points I've already said I don't buy, assuming, contradicting, using circular reasoning, pulling actions out of context, willfully misinterpreting what I said just to make a counterargument, creating pointless rabbit holes which don't even relate to the main point, whatnot. I'll just about never agree with posters who insist ASOIAF must align with rl history. GRRM is doing his own thing.

My view is unchanged. Your interpretation doesn't fit the characterization and if something doesn't fit the characters as written and the themes, I'm not convinced. I'll stand corrected if GRRM states otherwise in future books. Note the OP asks why they weren't princes and this question is correct as it's not in the books that they ever were no matter how much you may wish it otherwise.

On 4/9/2020 at 12:10 AM, Lollygag said:

If I was Tywin, I'd throw a huge fit about Stannis and Renly being named princes. Muddies the water too much about where the power really lies and puts too many ideas in people's heads if the Lannisters aren't to someone's liking. It's Varys' whole power and image thing. It's also why Cersei always kept her name. It's a constant reminder that Robert was backed by Tywin and that no one should forget that.

Makes sense to me that they didn't get those titles because it'd be out of character for the Lannisters to go along quietly with that. That and Robert wasn't particularly fond of either brother.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

You just keep repeating points I've already said I don't buy, assuming, contradicting, using circular reasoning, pulling actions out of context, willfully misinterpreting what I said just to make a counterargument, creating pointless rabbit holes which don't even relate to the main point, whatnot. I'll just about never agree with posters who insist ASOIAF must align with rl history. GRRM is doing his own thing.

My view is unchanged. Your interpretation doesn't fit the characterization and if something doesn't fit the characters as written and the themes, I'm not convinced. I'll stand corrected if GRRM states otherwise in future books. Note the OP asks why they weren't princes and this question is correct as it's not in the books that they ever were no matter how much you may wish it otherwise.

 

I should the say the same?? I'm not inventing the fact that Queens don't get to adopt their husbands's names. And Martin has said that one of the reasons Stannis got Dragonstone was because he was at the time Robert's heirs. And the Lannisterners is over the top and ludicrous. 

The truth is that we don't know whether they were ever treated as princes or not. It has nothing to do with RL,  in Westeros people are Prince as soon as a a close relative get crown themselves.

 

The idea that Tywin didn't want them to be called Princes and that's why they didn't is kinda  hard to believe, it's very unnconvincing that Tywin had that much influence over the crown that early. And being Prince don't get you swords, having money, being an important lord and being blood with the King does. It's a futile attempt as the events after Robert's death showed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question is pretty clear. Stannis and Renly aren't princes, and I think that is a mistake in light of the changes in styling used for Asha, Theon, Brandon, Rickon, Sansa, Arya, and Shireen after their respective fathers and brothers had decided to style themselves king.

The fact that Bran got promoted to 'prince' as presumptive heir of 'King Robb' should hammer home the fact that Robert's brothers Stannis and Renly should also be styled 'prince' after Robert took his throne.

There have been some attempts to explain away this fact but they all do not convince me. It is very much established that the title of 'prince' is much more prestigious than a mere lord (Joff being pissed that Mycah addresses him as 'my lord', Oberyn pointing out that a prince goes where he pleases, etc.), so there is no chance Stannis and Renly wouldn't have styled themselves this way if they had been granted the title - which they were not, for some strange reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/14/2019 at 7:18 PM, miyuki said:

Daenerys was never called a princess when Viserys was alive either if I remember correctly, she was either referred to as "khaleesi", "sister", "the child" or "the Dothraki whore". Maybe Stannis and Renly were princes, people just didn't call them that? Or GRRM just forgot about this.

Daenerys was always referred to as princess. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/16/2019 at 9:40 PM, Hugorfonics said:

To my understanding it would be Prince Stannis, lord of dragonstone.

Doesn't Theon style himself Prince of Winterfell, because Balon is the king in the North, in his mind?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/11/2020 at 12:44 AM, Lord Varys said:

Rhaenyra had all the Dragonstonian bannermen, of course, but also other lords from the Crownlands who had become Blacks during her years as Heir Apparent - the Rosbys, Stokeworths would belong to them in addition to the Darklyns, Stauntons, etc

The wording in F&B, though somewhat ambiguous, certainly allows for the possibility of the Stauntons & Darklyns to be vassals of Dragonstone at the time of the Dance:

Quote

A dozen lesser lords, bannermen and vassals to Dragonstone, sat at the black council as well: Celtigar of Claw Isle, Staunton of Rook’s Rest, Massey of Stonedance, Bar Emmon of Sharp Point, and Darklyn of Duskendale amongst them.

But yes, I very much doubt that Rosby & Stokeworth were Dragonstone vassals. However, it's interesting that they were among the Blacks at court when Viserys I died. A list that includes the Lords Butterwell, Hayford, Merryweather, Harte, Buckler, & Caswell, along with Lady Fell. Some of those have seats very close to KL, but others less so. Therefore, who just so happened to be in the capital for whatever reason at that time & who actually had a permanent court position?

IIRC, didn't F&B gives us (even) more of a pereception that some on the Small Council weren't necessarily Green or Black, or may have even leaned to the latter, but it was the Hightower insistence & Cole's arrest/assault/murder of Beesbury that turned them Green? If some of these other lords/lady had lesser posts at court, it really paints a picture that as much as Alicent had done as much in her power to secure the transition of power for Aegon the Elder, either Otto really dropped the ball by not appointing more Greens among the court or Viserys (or more likely, those such as Beesbury) ensured the Blacks still had some presence.

On 4/11/2020 at 12:44 AM, Lord Varys said:

When there were no Princes of Dragonstone one imagines that royal castellans and the like ruled the lordship until a new Prince of Dragonstone was created.

Yeah, these guys could/would therefore wield a great deal of power. Perhaps not quite so much as Nestor Royce whilst Jon Arryn was Hand (& not visiting the Vale on occasion), but rather high in terms on the Westerosi feudal scale. Something I've noticed about castellans though, is that they seem to rarely have their own independent base of power that they could potentially use to challenge their masters & attempt to take over the seat they're serving/holding. Even fewer are a lord or heir to another seat. More often than not, in the grand scheme of things, they're nobody household knights. One could perhaps expect that to be different for a seat such as Dragonstone (when the prince/princess/lord is absent or not currently acclaimed) & yet the known castellans are Robert Quince, Axell Florent, & Rolland Storm. Not exactly men of the highest prestige & standing.

All agreed for basically all of the rest of that comment of yours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Lord Corlys Velaryon said:

The wording in F&B, though somewhat ambiguous, certainly allows for the possibility of the Stauntons & Darklyns to be vassals of Dragonstone at the time of the Dance:

But yes, I very much doubt that Rosby & Stokeworth were Dragonstone vassals. However, it's interesting that they were among the Blacks at court when Viserys I died. A list that includes the Lords Butterwell, Hayford, Merryweather, Harte, Buckler, & Caswell, along with Lady Fell. Some of those have seats very close to KL, but others less so. Therefore, who just so happened to be in the capital for whatever reason at that time & who actually had a permanent court position?

Rook's Rest could be sworn to Dragonstone still, if the place exists in the main series. But I doubt the Darklyns were ever sworn directly to Dragonstone - the way to interpret this here would be that Rhaenyra's friends who were not sworn to her were also counted among them by Gyldayn.

3 hours ago, Lord Corlys Velaryon said:

IIRC, didn't F&B gives us (even) more of a pereception that some on the Small Council weren't necessarily Green or Black, or may have even leaned to the latter, but it was the Hightower insistence & Cole's arrest/assault/murder of Beesbury that turned them Green? If some of these other lords/lady had lesser posts at court, it really paints a picture that as much as Alicent had done as much in her power to secure the transition of power for Aegon the Elder, either Otto really dropped the ball by not appointing more Greens among the court or Viserys (or more likely, those such as Beesbury) ensured the Blacks still had some presence.

We know there were a lot of Blacks at court just as we know that there are many more offices at court than just the Small Council (FaB mentions them when Jaehaerys I does some reforms at court during his reign). I certainly of the opinion that there must have been more Blacks or Black-leaning council members than just Beesbury ... but his murder decided that those people made their peace with the coup. Or at least pretended to. Larys Strong I'd not consider to have ever been truly a Green. I also don't think Tyland Lannister was particularly Green prior to that council meeting. Once the king was dead everybody would have realized what the Hand and the queen and the Lord Commander wanted to push through.

3 hours ago, Lord Corlys Velaryon said:

Yeah, these guys could/would therefore wield a great deal of power. Perhaps not quite so much as Nestor Royce whilst Jon Arryn was Hand (& not visiting the Vale on occasion), but rather high in terms on the Westerosi feudal scale. Something I've noticed about castellans though, is that they seem to rarely have their own independent base of power that they could potentially use to challenge their masters & attempt to take over the seat they're serving/holding. Even fewer are a lord or heir to another seat. More often than not, in the grand scheme of things, they're nobody household knights. One could perhaps expect that to be different for a seat such as Dragonstone (when the prince/princess/lord is absent or not currently acclaimed) & yet the known castellans are Robert Quince, Axell Florent, & Rolland Storm. Not exactly men of the highest prestige & standing.

All agreed for basically all of the rest of that comment of yours.

Well, I imagine the management of Dragonstone wouldn't have been in the hands of just the castellan - also the maester, the steward, and so forth. Just as it is with other castles in the hands of a castellan. Nestor Royce had a specific title/office as High Steward which seems to have been something akin to regent of the Vale in the lord's absence, possibly going back to the days when the Arryns ruled as kings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Robert is the founder of a new royal dynasty who got his throne by right of conquest and Robert hails from a noble house which has never ruled as kings prior to his accession. It therefore wouldn't make sense for his brothers to be royal princes. All the chit chat about his Targaryen blood was just to smooth over the inconvenient truth of his accession to the Iron Throne and give his legitimacy a boost. 

With Robb Stark's accession, it is the very overdue resumption of their ancient kingship and therefore it makes sense for Robb's siblings to become royal princes and princesses upon him be proclaimed the King in the North.

Edited by Tywin Manderly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/14/2019 at 4:37 PM, The Hoare said:

Perharps because Steffon wasn't a king

Indeed.  They were not born into the title.  Steffon was not a monarch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...