During Robert's Rebellion why did they crown Robert King instead of other Targaryen candidates like viserys and aegon?

[Mario Seddy]

I was wondering why did the rebels have to crown Robert King instead of other Targaryen candidates like viserys and aegon. Was the overthrow of the targaryen dynasty necessary? After disposing Aerys couldn't they just crown aegon and appoint someone on the rebel side as regent and protector of the realm?Their  fight was with Aerys not the whole Targaryen dynasty, a regime change was a pain in the ass, so why couldn't they do what cregan stark did during the hour of the wolf? 

[frenin]

At some point of the Robellion they just thought the Targs, not only Rhaegar and  crazy daddy had to go, if you ask me, they didn't want any future backlash from a Targ king  or maybe they were just done with the dynasty.

[John Suburbs]

Semi-cannon sources claim Robert did not claim the Iron Throne until after the Blackwater. By then, so much blood had been spilled that some would wonder if it would be worth it if just another mad Targaryen were to rule. 

It's somewhat similar to the French and Russian revolutions, where some people felt the aim was to simply anoint a new king or czar when ultimately it led to a tearing down of the old order in favor of a new one.

[Eli Cross]

7 hours ago, Mario Seddy said:

I was wondering why did the rebels have to crown Robert King instead of other Targaryen candidates like viserys and aegon. Was the overthrow of the targaryen dynasty necessary? After disposing Aerys couldn't they just crown aegon and appoint someone on the rebel side as regent and protector of the realm?Their  fight was with Aerys not the whole Targaryen dynasty, a regime change was a pain in the ass, so why couldn't they do what cregan stark did during the hour of the wolf? 

Because they are rebels.  They will side with the victor.  And until such a time when a strong Targaryen returns, yes, they will honor Robert.  Then we know Robert destroyed the kingdom.  Team Baratheon, Arryn, and Stark proved incompetent. 

[nyser1]

This could end even worse with an infant King and a fight for the regency & other positions....for many years to come (if the contenders survive that long).

[The Young Maester]

Maybe the rebels thought that Rhaegar inherited his fathers madness. So they probably thought, no point keeping this dynasty in power anymore.
From their point of view it made sense, since they didn’t want to risk another mad king. Instead they got a fat king. But it’s still better than a mad king.

[Lord Varys]

We actually really don't know. Crowning Robert is what made their rebellion against a mad and tyrannical king into an ugly usurpation. Aerys II did have one male and (eventually) two female heirs who came before Robert, and while Aegon and Rhaenys were still alive he had two more.

As a Targaryen descendant himself, Robert would have been manifestly unsuited to take the throne if people had second thoughts about 'a madness' in Targaryen blood. The Baratheons were founded as an (alleged) Targaryen cadet branch, and their dragon blood was reinforced at least twice during the Targaryen reign. If the children of Betha Blackwood, Dyanna Dayne, and Myriah Martell had mental issues, then the children of Cassana Estermont are not safe from that, either.

In fact, Lady Olenna claims the Targaryen blood of the Baratheons is responsible for their queer notions.

[Hugorfonics]

Ned decided Robert should be king, nobody stopped him

Quote

"Shall I proclaim a new king as well?" Crakehall asked, and Jaime read the question plain: Shall it be your father, or Robert Baratheon, or do you mean to try to make a new dragonking? He thought for a moment of the boy Viserys, fled to Dragonstone, and of Rhaegar's infant son Aegon, still in Maegor's with his mother. A new Targaryen king, and my father as Hand. How the wolves will howl, and the storm lord choke with rage. For a moment he was tempted, until he glanced down again at the body on the floor, in its spreading pool of blood. His blood is in both of them, he thought. "Proclaim who you bloody well like," he told Crakehall. Then he climbed the Iron Throne and seated himself with his sword across his knees, to see who would come to claim the kingdom. As it happened, it had been Eddard Stark.

Quote

Robert sat down again. "Damn you, Ned Stark. You and Jon Arryn, I loved you both. What have you done to me? You were the one should have been king, you or Jon."

"You had the better claim, Your Grace."

 

[frenin]

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

We actually really don't know. Crowning Robert is what made their rebellion against a mad and tyrannical king into an ugly usurpation. Aerys II did have one male and (eventually) two female heirs who came before Robert, and while Aegon and Rhaenys were still alive he had two more.

 

Was an ugly usurpation, it certainly I no have any repairs about Baratheons taking over

[Endymion I Targaryen]

Rhaegar and Aerys crossed a line with their actions. Rhaella was a woman. Viserys, Rhaenys and Aegon were too young. Robert on the other hand was a promising young man, kind, charming with dragon blood.

[The hairy bear]

The problem is that the rebels were fighting against both the king and his heir (Aerys for the murders of Rickard, Brandon and their companions; Rhaegar for raping Lyanna).

Honestly, I don't see it as a "ugly usurpation". There is, after all, precedent for bypassing the descendants of a mad individual (the Great Council of 233 bypassed Aerion's son). And Robert was the first in the Targaryen succession line that didn't descend from the Mad King. But in any case, overthrowing a cruel king and a line that only achieved royalty through conquest doesn't qualify as "ugly" or "usurpation" in my book.

18 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

Semi-cannon sources claim Robert did not claim the Iron Throne until after the Blackwater.

I'm confident it was some time before.

(Of course you meant the Trident)

[Lord Varys]

30 minutes ago, The hairy bear said:

The problem is that the rebels were fighting against both the king and his heir (Aerys for the murders of Rickard, Brandon and their companions; Rhaegar for raping Lyanna).

Well, the latter might not actually be true and just a pretext they used intentionally. We don't really know whether even Robert himself believed the rape story, or whether he merely wanted to believe it.

30 minutes ago, The hairy bear said:

Honestly, I don't see it as a "ugly usurpation". There is, after all, precedent for bypassing the descendants of a mad individual (the Great Council of 233 bypassed Aerion's son). And Robert was the first in the Targaryen succession line that didn't descend from the Mad King. But in any case, overthrowing a cruel king and a line that only achieved royalty through conquest doesn't qualify as "ugly" or "usurpation" in my book.

But it is an usurpation because Robert simply had no right to the throne as per the rules of the society he lived in. It seems that rebellion against a tyrant is okay, not so much using that as a pretext to make yourself king. And it was ugly because Robert only got rid of the tyrant and his immediate heirs by (condoning) murder.

The rebels did have the moral high ground in all that ... until they decided not just to topple Aerys II and Rhaegar but also to put Robert on the throne instead.

It is still interesting and, at this point, completely unclear when and why Robert Baratheon started to think he might be a better Daemon Blackfyre. Because that's what they made him. And I find it actually really odd that a man like Ned who later seems to have very rigid principles ('Stannis must be king, no matter what') would support the idea of making Robert king - even if he were of the opinion Aerys II and even Rhaegar had to die (and I'm not sure he was on board with killing a captured Rhaegar) Aerys II did have other heirs.

We see this rigidness in Robb later, too. He admits that he has issues with Joffrey, but that doesn't mean he thinks Tommen should die, too, or that Tommen does not have a rightful claim to the Iron Throne.

And if you steal a throne you better kill all those who have a better claim than you have. Else you go down the way the Lancasters did.

[frenin]

13 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, the latter might not actually be true and just a pretext they used intentionally. We don't really know whether even Robert himself believed the rape story, or whether he merely wanted to believe it.

I don't see they just made that up, rape is the most logic idea, since absolutely no one argues the abduction part and  Rhaegar just hid  with Lyanna, that he was raping her is the obvious and  first thought, especially after Harrenhall.

 

 

17 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

20 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The rebels did have the moral high ground in all that ... until they decided not just to topple Aerys II and Rhaegar but also to put Robert on the throne instead.

 

But why??

 

 

23 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

It is still interesting and, at this point, completely unclear when and why Robert Baratheon started to think he might be a better Daemon Blackfyre. Because that's what they made him. And I find it actually really odd that a man like Ned who later seems to have very rigid principles ('Stannis must be king, no matter what') would support the idea of making Robert king - even if he were of the opinion Aerys II and even Rhaegar had to die (and I'm not sure he was on board with killing a captured Rhaegar) Aerys II did have other heirs.

Until the ToJ Ned had the same info the rebels had, so him killing a captured  Rhaegar would not be different that him killing Aerys, what is the difference between them??

Ned seemed to be done with the Targs, he never regretted being a Baratheon man or even thought of a Targ restoration, when he had his fallout with Robert he says that he thought the rebels had put the better man on the Throne, I don't see that odd to be honest, Ned had suffered major hits  from the Targs, why put children on a Throne when your best friend seems more promising, if he was ok with becoming a Kingslayer, he was ok with Robert being King, Ned didn't want the children to die and  he must have thought he could neutralize them, Robb is too rigid, more than Ned ever was, we see that with Jeyne, Ned never would've done what Robb did.

34 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

And if you steal a throne you better kill all those who have a better claim than you have. Else you go down the way the Lancasters did.

You can just neutralizd those who better claim that you,.

[John Suburbs]

2 hours ago, The hairy bear said:

The problem is that the rebels were fighting against both the king and his heir (Aerys for the murders of Rickard, Brandon and their companions; Rhaegar for raping Lyanna).

Honestly, I don't see it as a "ugly usurpation". There is, after all, precedent for bypassing the descendants of a mad individual (the Great Council of 233 bypassed Aerion's son). And Robert was the first in the Targaryen succession line that didn't descend from the Mad King. But in any case, overthrowing a cruel king and a line that only achieved royalty through conquest doesn't qualify as "ugly" or "usurpation" in my book.

I'm confident it was some time before.

(Of course you meant the Trident)

Yes, sorry, the Trident.

[Lord Varys]

2 hours ago, frenin said:

I don't see they just made that up, rape is the most logic idea, since absolutely no one argues the abduction part and  Rhaegar just hid  with Lyanna, that he was raping her is the obvious and  first thought, especially after Harrenhall.

Well, then you better stop reading the books. Because that happens not to be clear and is clearly going to be a subject of later books.

2 hours ago, frenin said:

Until the ToJ Ned had the same info the rebels had, so him killing a captured  Rhaegar would not be different that him killing Aerys, what is the difference between them??

We don't know what Ned knew at what time or what he did or did not share with Robert and the others.

As for the latter: Are you serious??? Killing a captive is murder, plain and simple. It is a rather interesting thing what they would have done to a Rhaegar who was captured in battle rather than being slain in combat.

Killing a captured Aerys II would also have been a pretty big issue, establishing a precedent that an anointed king could be, well, murdered by his subjects. That kind of thing would establish that the same kind of thing could be done to Robert, too.

Robert himself is of the opinion that somebody had to kill Aerys II - but Ned does not agree there in the books, does he? His defense of Viserys III and Daenerys and her unborn child as well as his condemnation of Jaime does not imply he was keen to murder royals. He doesn't even ever express a hatred of Aerys II or the desire to murder the man.

And if you ask me, a guy as mad as Aerys II could have easily been neutralized without killing him. He would have made a fine hostage.

2 hours ago, frenin said:

Ned seemed to be done with the Targs, he never regretted being a Baratheon man or even thought of a Targ restoration, when he had his fallout with Robert he says that he thought the rebels had put the better man on the Throne, I don't see that odd to be honest, Ned had suffered major hits  from the Targs, why put children on a Throne when your best friend seems more promising, if he was ok with becoming a Kingslayer, he was ok with Robert being King, Ned didn't want the children to die and  he must have thought he could neutralize them, Robb is too rigid, more than Ned ever was, we see that with Jeyne, Ned never would've done what Robb did.

Ned is also insanely rigid when he insist Stannis has to be king. If he gives that much about the law then why didn't he insist that Viserys III had to be king after the deaths of Aerys II and Rhaegar and Aegon? And if Ned helped to make the decision to proclaim Robert Baratheon king before the Trident and the Sack, then what exactly was his justification for that?

In the books we really have yet to be told when and how and why it was decided that Robert should be king. We don't even know whether the rebels also called him 'king' and 'Your Grace' before Aerys II was dead.

[frenin]

On 10/25/2019 at 6:12 PM, Lord Varys said:

Well, then you better stop reading the books. Because that happens not to be clear and is clearly going to be a subject of later books.

 

I didn't said Rhaegar actually did it, even when the only ones doubting it are the fans, i said thatthe abduction story is uncontested by both sides, the only difference the loyalist say that Rhaegar abducted her because of love, if the rebels thought Lyanna was abducted, that she was being raped was the next logical conclusion.

 

 

On 10/25/2019 at 6:12 PM, Lord Varys said:

We don't know what Ned knew at what time or what he did or did not share with Robert and the others.

 

Fair enough.

 

On 10/25/2019 at 6:12 PM, Lord Varys said:

 As for the latter: Are you serious??? Killing a captive is murder, plain and simple. It is a rather interesting thing what they would have done to a Rhaegar who was captured in battle rather than being slain in combat.

 

And killing a King is also kingslaying, if Ned was under the impression Rhaegar was a monster i don't think he would've hesitated and we know that when Barri B was brought captive to the rebel leaders,  whether he lived or died was Robert's and Robert's only decision, no one thought it would be bad or dishonorable to kill him, the idea of not killing Jaime because of honor is also not brought to the table.

 

 

On 10/25/2019 at 6:12 PM, Lord Varys said:

 Killing a captured Aerys II would also have been a pretty big issue, establishing a precedent that an anointed king could be, well, murdered by his subjects. That kind of thing would establish that the same kind of thing could be done to Robert, too.

 

I don't think kingslaying was something that was never done in history when Jaime did it and the reasons for the kinslaying was actual madness.

 

 

On 10/25/2019 at 6:12 PM, Lord Varys said:

Robert himself is of the opinion that somebody had to kill Aerys II - but Ned does not agree there in the books, does he?

He actually does and that's why he actually condemns Jaime.

 

His sword helped taint the throne you sit on, Ned thought, but he did not permit the words to pass his lips. "He swore a vow to protect his king's life with his own. Then he opened that king's throat with a sword."
"Seven hells, someone had to kill Aerys!" Robert said, reining his mount to a sudden halt beside an ancient barrow. "If Jaime hadn't done it, it would have been left for you or me."
"We were not Sworn Brothers of the Kingsguard," Ned said. The time had come for Robert to hear the whole truth, he decided then and there. "Do you remember the Trident, Your Grace?"

 

 

On 10/25/2019 at 6:12 PM, Lord Varys said:

His defense of Viserys III and Daenerys and her unborn child as well as his condemnation of Jaime does not imply he was keen to murder royals. 

He never defended Viserys iirc and when he defends Dany and the kids is on the ground they were innocent children, not on the ground of them being royals, that's why Ned tried to save Cersei's kids, because they were innocent kids. 

He condems Jaime because Jaime was a kingsguard killing a King, which was unthinkable, not because he thinks Aerys didn't have to go.

 

 

On 10/25/2019 at 6:12 PM, Lord Varys said:

He doesn't even ever express a hatred of Aerys II or the desire to murder the man.

Why would he?? Aerys is dead, his house routed and defeated, given the fact that we know Ned is capable of hold grudges, the Lanisters and Jorah, i just think Ned is not a man who hates long dead people, that's why he don't like Robert still hating the Targs.

The idea that Ned didn't hate during the rebellion the man who brutally killed his father and elder brother is...

 

 

On 10/25/2019 at 6:12 PM, Lord Varys said:

And if you ask me, a guy as mad as Aerys II could have easily been neutralized without killing him. He would have made a fine hostage.

Aerys had to pay for the crimes he made, the children were the ones who more likely would've been kept as hostages.

 

 

 

On 10/25/2019 at 6:12 PM, Lord Varys said:

Ned is also insanely rigid when he insist Stannis has to be king. If he gives that much about the law then why didn't he insist that Viserys III had to be king after the deaths of Aerys II and Rhaegar and Aegon? And if Ned helped to make the decision to proclaim Robert Baratheon king before the Trident and the Sack, then what exactly was his justification for that?

 

Because Ned believing the Targs had to go, don't have to change all Ned's vision about laws and succesion, if for Ned the Targs were no longer a viable option for him, and they clearly are not given that he does not even once think about them as replacement for Robert,  he'll stick with the next viable option, when the North and the Riverlands broke free from the Throne, they did not named King a Mormont, they named King a Stark, they didn't think that just because they ignored a law for a special circumstance, they could ignore every law now and then.

Ned picked a side and stoof with it.

 

 

On 10/25/2019 at 6:12 PM, Lord Varys said:

 In the books we really have yet to be told when and how and why it was decided that Robert should be king. We don't even know whether the rebels also called him 'king' and 'Your Grace' before Aerys II was dead.

We know the rebels accepted that he was going to be King on the Trident and that should've been a rather open secret because pretty much everyone thought Robert thought Robert as a viable option to become King after the Trident, if the Lannister host doubted whether if proclaiming Robert or the Targ kids king, they had to have a notion of the stakes by then.

 

 

 

 

 

[Lord Varys]

6 minutes ago, frenin said:

I didn't said Rhaegar actually did it, even when the only ones doubting it are the fans, i said thatthe abduction story is uncontested by both sides, the only difference the loyalist say that Rhaegar abducted her because of love, if the rebels thought Lyanna was abducted, that she was being raped was the next logical conclusion.

The abduction story is not confirmed as such, either. If Lya was in on the plan and they only get away from guardians she wanted to get away from then this wouldn't have been an abduction.

Jumping to conclusions makes no sense in this setting, as would also be a clear in a scenario where Rhaegar was captured alive. There they would have to actually ask Lyanna for her testimony before punishing Rhaegar as a rapist. At least if they actually gave a damn about finding out what actually happened and doing proper justice.

6 minutes ago, frenin said:

And killing a King is also kingslaying, if Ned was under the impression Rhaegar was a monster i don't think he would've hesitated and we know that when Barri B was brought captive to the rebel leaders,  whether he lived or died was Robert's and Robert's only decision, no one thought it would be bad or dishonorable to kill him, the idea of not killing Jaime because of honor is also not brought to the table.

Kings have been killed before, it gets problematic if a guy who wants to be king/pretends to be king actually condones and/or does not punish the murder of his predecessor. That means it is fair game to kill the king if you can get away with it which is basically inviting everyone to try to rebel and kill 'the king'.

6 minutes ago, frenin said:

I don't think kingslaying was something that was never done in history when Jaime did it and the reasons for the kinslaying was actual madness.

Jaime's reason to kill Aerys II was that he wanted to do it and thought he could get away with it. He really didn't have a good reason for it, considering his father's men were literally already knocking at the door and he had already prevented the wildfire plan by killing Rossart. He could have arrested or knocked out Aerys II if he had really feared the guy would make another attempt, to then hand over the king to his father's men - who could have killed or kept him alive for Tywin or Robert to do it.

6 minutes ago, frenin said:

 

He actually does and that's why he actually condemns Jaime.

 

His sword helped taint the throne you sit on, Ned thought, but he did not permit the words to pass his lips. "He swore a vow to protect his king's life with his own. Then he opened that king's throat with a sword."
"Seven hells, someone had to kill Aerys!" Robert said, reining his mount to a sudden halt beside an ancient barrow. "If Jaime hadn't done it, it would have been left for you or me."
"We were not Sworn Brothers of the Kingsguard," Ned said. The time had come for Robert to hear the whole truth, he decided then and there. "Do you remember the Trident, Your Grace?"

That just means Ned condemns Jaime especially for the kingslaying, it does not mean Ned actually wanted to kill Aerys II. It might imply he would have accpeted that burden, but not necessarily that he wanted to kill him.

6 minutes ago, frenin said:

He never defended Viserys iirc and when he defends Dany and the kids is on the ground they were innocent children, not on the ground of them being royals, that's why Ned tried to save Cersei's kids, because they were innocent kids. 

He condems Jaime because Jaime was a kingsguard killing a King, which was unthinkable, not because he thinks Aerys didn't have to go.

Ned has a falling out over Robert's plan to murder Dany, her unborn child, and Viserys III. He does not have a falling out with Robert over Sandor Clegane murdering Mycah. There are a children and there are children - peasant children are worth less than royal children in Ned's mind.

Or perhaps it is also/more about the fact that Jon is a Targaryen, too, and Ned participating in the murders of Dany and Viserys III is uncomfortable to him for that reason.

Cersei's children do indeed bring back Aegon and Rhaenys to Ned (and also the threat to Jon's life) and that influences his decision there. But that, too, hinges on him being able to put himself into Cersei's shoes.

6 minutes ago, frenin said:

Why would he?? Aerys is dead, his house routed and defeated, given the fact that we know Ned is capable of hold grudges, the Lanisters and Jorah, i just think Ned is not a man who hates long dead people, that's why he don't like Robert still hating the Targs.

The idea that Ned didn't hate during the rebellion the man who brutally killed his father and elder brother is...

Well, I can also ask why the hell Robert still hates long-dead Rhaegar? Why didn't he get over that thing? Isn't that stupid?

The thing is that we don't have the slightest indication that Ned ever hated King Aerys II. It might be ... but if he did then we don't know that at this point.

6 minutes ago, frenin said:

Aerys had to pay for the crimes he made, the children were the ones who more likely would've been kept as hostages.

Well, considering that the man was actually suffering from a mental illness pretending he was 'guilty' the same way a sane person would be is just not very enlightened - and since those people actually do have a concept of madness and insanity it would have actually not been that bad of a move to simply depose and imprison the Mad King rather than execute him. It would have been much better for the monarchy as a concept.

In fact, Jaime killing this madman actually shows how depraved a guy he is - he was either unable or unwilling to see that Aerys II could not really be (fully) blamed for his mad actions.

6 minutes ago, frenin said:

Because Ned believing the Targs had to go, don't have to change all Ned's vision about laws and succesion, if for Ned the Targs were no longer a viable option for him, and they clearly are not given that he does not even once think about them as replacement for Robert,  he'll stick with the next viable option, when the North and the Riverlands broke free from the Throne, they did not named King a Mormont, they named King a Stark, they didn't think that just because they ignored a law for a special circumstance, they could ignore every law now and then.

Ned picked a side and stoof with it.

There is no indication that (and if so, why) Ned would have thought the Targaryens had to go. You are just pulling that possibility out of your ass.

But if it was the case, then this means by default that nothing could have forced Ned to insist Stannis must be king - he had already proven that he can ignore the law. Stannis was and is manifestly unsuited for the throne, and happens to have a lot of Targaryen blood. In fact, if Ned actually feared the blood was tainted and that was the reason why Aerys II descendants should not inherit the Iron Throne, then the best way to safeguard the royal bloodline from this taint would have been to put one of Cersei's children on the Iron Throne because they as fake Baratheons would have had neither Baratheon nor Targaryen blood.

[frenin]

On 10/25/2019 at 7:32 PM, Lord Varys said:

The abduction story is not confirmed as such, either. If Lya was in on the plan and they only get away from guardians she wanted to get away from then this wouldn't have been an abduction.

Jumping to conclusions makes no sense in this setting, as would also be a clear in a scenario where Rhaegar was captured alive. There they would have to actually ask Lyanna for her testimony before punishing Rhaegar as a rapist. At least if they actually gave a damn about finding out what actually happened and doing proper justice.

Confirmed or not, it's clearly what everyone think it happened, so everyone who felt wronged by the kidnapping would thibk Rhaegar did not kidnapp her to sing to her and if they were enraged wth Rhaegar is not that unlikely that Rhaehat couldn't even have a chance to talk and it actually seems that around the Trident all the rebels were clear about the Targs having to go.

 

On 10/25/2019 at 7:32 PM, Lord Varys said:

Kings have been killed before, it gets problematic if a guy who wants to be king/pretends to be king actually condones and/or does not punish the murder of his predecessor. That means it is fair game to kill the king if you can get away with it which is basically inviting everyone to try to rebel and kill 'the king'.

 

Is it?? Or is just a reminder of sic semper tyrannis??

 

On 10/25/2019 at 7:32 PM, Lord Varys said:

Jaime's reason to kill Aerys II was that he wanted to do it and thought he could get away with it. He really didn't have a good reason for it, considering his father's men were literally already knocking at the door and he had already prevented the wildfire plan by killing Rossart. He could have arrested or knocked out Aerys II if he had really feared the guy would make another attempt, to then hand over the king to his father's men - who could have killed or kept him alive for Tywin or Robert to do it.

 

Oh, totally agree there.

 

On 10/25/2019 at 7:32 PM, Lord Varys said:

That just means Ned condemns Jaime especially for the kingslaying, it does not mean Ned actually wanted to kill Aerys II. It might imply he would have accpeted that burden, but not necessarily that he wanted to kill him.

 

But it's not what you argued,  you're goalposting here.

 

On 10/25/2019 at 7:32 PM, Lord Varys said:

Ned has a falling out over Robert's plan to murder Dany, her unborn child, and Viserys III. He does not have a falling out with Robert over Sandor Clegane murdering Mycah. There are a children and there are children - peasant children are worth less than royal children in Ned's mind.

Or perhaps it is also/more about the fact that Jon is a Targaryen, too, and Ned participating in the murders of Dany and Viserys III is uncomfortable to him for that reason.

Cersei's children do indeed bring back Aegon and Rhaenys to Ned (and also the threat to Jon's life) and that influences his decision there. But that, too, hinges on him being able to put himself into Cersei's shoes.

As, Lothor Brune brilliantly puts it, "Is a peasant, don't dare compare her to someone that matters".

Noble blood is not commn blood for Ned and Nedis not confortable about spilling the innocent ones.

 

 

On 10/25/2019 at 7:32 PM, Lord Varys said:

Well, I can also ask why the hell Robert still hates long-dead Rhaegar? Why didn't he get over that thing? Isn't that stupid?

We're literally told that Robert hate for the Targs was madness in him, which implies that not only was very common but also not very healthy and Ned is clearly uncomfortable with it.

 

On 10/25/2019 at 7:32 PM, Lord Varys said:

The thing is that we don't have the slightest indication that Ned ever hated King Aerys II. It might be ... but if he did then we don't know that at this point.

 

Are we to suppose then that he just understood that crazy dudes get to do cray things and that it wasn't his fault?? And the robellion wasn't personal for him??

 

On 10/25/2019 at 7:32 PM, Lord Varys said:

Well, considering that the man was actually suffering from a mental illness pretending he was 'guilty' the same way a sane person would be is just not very enlightened - and since those people actually do have a concept of madness and insanity it would have actually not been that bad of a move to simply depose and imprison the Mad King rather than execute him. It would have been much better for the monarchy as a concept.

 

They do have a concept of madness or insanity but they don't seem to condone absolutely everything a mad kperson does, especially if it those things have dire repercussions.

 

 

On 10/25/2019 at 7:32 PM, Lord Varys said:

 In fact, Jaime killing this madman actually shows how depraved a guy he is - he was either unable or unwilling to see that Aerys II could not really be (fully) blamed for his mad actions.

 

Yeah right.

 

On 10/25/2019 at 7:32 PM, Lord Varys said:

There is no indication that (and if so, why) Ned would have thought the Targaryens had to go. You are just pulling that possibility out of your ass.

 

Ofc i am, but since, Ned never once regretted the Baratheon dynasty or even thought about a restoration, is the more likely idea. 

But we do have this.

"I wish him every success." Ned unfastened the heavy clasp that clutched at the folds of his cloak, the ornate silver hand that was his badge of office. He laid it on the table in front of the king, saddened by the memory of the man who had pinned it on him, the friend he had loved. "I thought you a better man than this, Robert. I thought we had made a nobler king."

 

Whichs implies that he was on board with the decision of making Robert king, if it was not indeed his decision.

 

 

On 10/25/2019 at 7:32 PM, Lord Varys said:

 But if it was the case, then this means by default that nothing could have forced Ned to insist Stannis must be king - he had already proven that he can ignore the law. Stannis was and is manifestly unsuited for the throne, and happens to have a lot of Targaryen blood. In fact, if Ned actually feared the blood was tainted and that was the reason why Aerys II descendants should not inherit the Iron Throne, then the best way to safeguard the royal bloodline from this taint would have been to put one of Cersei's children on the Iron Throne because they as fake Baratheons would have had neither Baratheon nor Targaryen blood.

You're making a problem that is not really there, Ned could simply not suffer another Targ on the Throne, if he was afraid of what the Targ blood might do, they wouldn't give the crown to Robert because of his Targ blood. Just like Ned hiding Jon's parentage didn't make him any less commited to the Baratheon cause, this would've not just turned Ned'ss believes upside down,  Ned did ignore the law by rebeling, so why is that a difference.

Ned believing or just not wanting the Targs on the Throne, don't mean that from then on he will be oblivious to succession laws and Ned is open that he don't want Cersei's kids on the Throne, why would he?? He bled for that Throne, he's not going to give it away to his enemies.

[The hairy bear]

On 10/25/2019 at 3:21 PM, Lord Varys said:

We don't really know whether even Robert himself believed the rape story, or whether he merely wanted to believe it.

Regarding the "rape" of Lyanna, we should take into account the original definition of the word that was in use in our medieval times that the novels take inspiration from.

Rape comes from the Latin raptio, which means 'stealing', and it was used in the sense of taking away a woman from their legal guardians. Usually it also implied that there had been a sexual assault, but it was not required. Even if the woman ran off willingly with a man, it was said that she had been raped. We should understand that in an ancient mindset rape was a crime committed not against the woman, but against the honor of her family. (For example, the famous classical episode, the Romans just abducted and begged the Sabine women them to marry them without their father's permission. There was no sex before the marriage, and yet the episode is still known as the "Rape of the Sabine Women".)

Within this mindset, Lyanna was definitely raped insofar as that she was taken from her family without Rickard's approval.

 

On 10/25/2019 at 3:21 PM, Lord Varys said:

But it is an usurpation because Robert simply had no right to the throne as per the rules of the society he lived in. It seems that rebellion against a tyrant is okay, not so much using that as a pretext to make yourself king. And it was ugly because Robert only got rid of the tyrant and his immediate heirs by (condoning) murder.

Targaryen supporters will surely call it an "ugly usurpation", but I fail to see how a royal dynasty that was built over the a brutal Conquest that costed the lives of thousands could claim any kind of moral high ground. How is that the murders of Aegon and Rhaenys are disgusting, but burning Harren's sons alive at Harrenhal is OK. Why the mass murder at the Field of Fire, the threat to little Ronnel Arryn's life or the repeated burning of most of Dorne's castles do not constitute a stain to the Targaryen's legitimacy, but Robert doesn't get a pass.

I don't know. As I said, there's legal precedent for bypassing young descendants of a mad individual, so it would be easy for Robert's supporters to claim that his ascension was perfectly legal. It's not like the court notary (or whatever equivalent they have) is going to complain.

[Lord Varys]

55 minutes ago, The hairy bear said:

Regarding the "rape" of Lyanna, we should take into account the original definition of the word that was in use in our medieval times that the novels take inspiration from.

Rape comes from the Latin raptio, which means 'stealing', and it was used in the sense of taking away a woman from their legal guardians. Usually it also implied that there had been a sexual assault, but it was not required. Even if the woman ran off willingly with a man, it was said that she had been raped. We should understand that in an ancient mindset rape was a crime committed not against the woman, but against the honor of her family. (For example, the famous classical episode, the Romans just abducted and begged the Sabine women them to marry them without their father's permission. There was no sex before the marriage, and yet the episode is still known as the "Rape of the Sabine Women".)

Within this mindset, Lyanna was definitely raped insofar as that she was taken from her family without Rickard's approval.

I know all that, but Robert himself uses the modern meaning of the term when he talks about Rhaegar raping Lyanna multiple times.

55 minutes ago, The hairy bear said:

Targaryen supporters will surely call it an "ugly usurpation", but I fail to see how a royal dynasty that was built over the a brutal Conquest that costed the lives of thousands could claim any kind of moral high ground. How is that the murders of Aegon and Rhaenys are disgusting, but burning Harren's sons alive at Harrenhal is OK. Why the mass murder at the Field of Fire, the threat to little Ronnel Arryn's life or the repeated burning of most of Dorne's castles do not constitute a stain to the Targaryen's legitimacy, but Robert doesn't get a pass.

That is not so difficult to understand. The world they live in, like medieval and modern societies in general, do know and accept that kingdoms and states can go to war and that you can enlarge your territories by means of conquest. That's how all of the Seven Kingdoms came into being, and how all of the nation-states we have now developed.

If conquest wasn't a proper way to forge a kingdom, then the Starks have no right to rule the North, the Arryns no right to rule their Vale, the Lannisters no right to rule the West, etc.

And we quite clearly see that the mad/stupid actions of one individual do not affect the right of a house or dynasty to rule. Robb fucked things up for the North and the Starks with his 'I want to be king' idea - yet this doesn't mean his failure causes even his enemies to think the Starks lost all claims to the North simply because Robb lost. Robert himself thinks the Targaryens in exile have better claims to his throne than he does - that's why he fears them. Just as Roose and Ramsay fear Ned's sons.

However, rebellions and coups are different things. Robert didn't declare war on a foreign nation and conquered it. He and his buddies had the moral high ground to a point while there were fighting against the tyranny of a mad king - but Robert's hatred and persecution of Rhaegar is already questionable, at least if we consider the possibility that he might have been aware of the fact that Lyanna was neither abducted nor raped.

The rebels really had no reason to do more than topple King Aerys II. After that, they should have made the next in line king rather than kill the rightful heirs of the king and make one of their own the new king over their dead bodies. Which is even more heinous if you consider that Robert himself is actually a close relation to those dead children.

And if you look at the aftermath of the Dance then this argument that the child would have to avenge the parents, etc. doesn't really have that many teeth. Aegon III didn't start a campaign to destroy all the Greens once he started to rule in his own right, never mind the fact that they are all responsible for the deaths of his three brothers, his mother, his father, and other close relations.

55 minutes ago, The hairy bear said:

I don't know. As I said, there's legal precedent for bypassing young descendants of a mad individual, so it would be easy for Robert's supporters to claim that his ascension was perfectly legal. It's not like the court notary (or whatever equivalent they have) is going to complain.

Nobody - including Robert himself - ever said Robert's ascension was 'perfectly legal'. Instead Robert himself he is king because he is the strongest guy with the largest war hammer around.

Even the Blackfyre partisan had a better pretext why Robert should be king - they said that the sword was the kingdom, that Daeron II was falseborn, and that Aegon IV wanted Daemon to be king. Nobody ever wanted Robert Baratheon to be a king.