Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Mario Seddy

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

Recommended Posts

On 10/28/2019 at 2:29 PM, Lord Varys said:

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.

They have the same right to rule than every dynasty, acceptance and tradition, the Starks losing the North is not that different than the Targs losing the Throne either.

 

 

On 10/28/2019 at 2:29 PM, Lord Varys said:

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.

 

Since crowning Robb wasn't his idea in the first place i don't even understand why he fucked things up.

 

On 10/28/2019 at 2:29 PM, Lord Varys said:

 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.

 

This is the ground that i don't understand, how and why would he know that?? Who would tell him?? Ned's the only one who could fill the void and he didn't seem  eager to burst the buble, the idea that Robert and Ned all knew what happened but they just "based everything on a lie", Rhaegar for all we know had abducted Lyanna, we have no sources contradicting it, and was raping Lyanna, different degrees on blame and motivations are given here, so i don't understand why focus the blame on the rebels here when Rhaegar and Lyanna never bothered in explain themselves and clear things up.

 

 

 

On 10/28/2019 at 2:29 PM, Lord Varys said:

 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.

 

They do have reasons to do so, other different and understandable thing is that you don't like said reasons or you are not convinced by them.

The rebels didn't kill the "rightful heirs", Tywin did, pin Tywin's actions on the rebels is like pining Balon's attack on the Reach on the rebels, i don't understand why one is, and it's quite clear by Ned's reaction that that wasn't the plan, Robert's reaction do say to us he was already having that in mind  even if he didn't tell that to his buddies.

 

 

On 10/28/2019 at 2:29 PM, Lord Varys said:

 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.

 

Aegon was clinically too depressed to do anything, not every child would grow to be Aegon the Unhappy and honestly only a fool would've taken chances, why would they?? Because it was the right thing to do according to some loyalists??

 

 

On 10/28/2019 at 2:29 PM, Lord Varys said:

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. 

We really don't know the racionalizations of Robert's reign but everyone understands that racionalizations are just that and they don't become history until some has passed I don't remember no one saying that he was the strongest dude with a cool warhammer, the sword being the Kingdom and Daeron being a bastard etc etc,  would be just racionalizations, as their respective counterarguments until the time settled them as established facts.

 

On 10/28/2019 at 2:29 PM, Lord Varys said:

Nobody ever wanted Robert Baratheon to be a king.

They wouldn't have made him King if they didn't want to, how do you know that nobody wanted him to be King?? I agree that the rebellion didn't started with the idea of him being crowned but as time passed and blood was spilled and the rebels started to become Robert's army... That doesn't ring true.

 

 

Edited by frenin

Share this post


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

They have the same right to rule than every dynasty, acceptance and tradition, the Starks losing the North is not that different than the Targs losing the Throne either.

And in both cases people still think those houses are the rightful of their particular domains. The Boltons know they are usurpers, just as Robert knew he was usurper.

13 minutes ago, frenin said:

Since crowning Robb wasn't his idea in the first place i don't even understand why he fucked things up.

Because he accepted the crown and grew into a self-involved king who made solitary decisions?

13 minutes ago, frenin said:

This is the ground that i don't understand, how and why would he know that?? Who would tell him?? Ned's the only one who could fill the void and he didn't seem  eager to burst the buble, the idea that Robert and Ned all knew what happened but they just "based everything on a lie", Rhaegar for all we know had abducted Lyanna, we have no sources contradicting it, and was raping Lyanna, different degrees on blame and motivations are given here, so i don't understand why focus the blame on the rebels here when Rhaegar and Lyanna never bothered in explain themselves and clear things up.

We simply don't know what Robert knew or didn't know - on both a conscious and unconscious level. On his deathbed he admits Rhaegar has Lyanna, he does not expect her to join her in death. That's not the kind of thing you say of a man you believe raped a woman multiple times.

Pretending we have the full picture of the Rhaegar-Lyanna story - or that we have an accurate picture of what the various POVs and non-POVs knew about them is not very smart. We know that George reveals things people know piece by piece. We had Ned's POV and he never told us who Jon's mother was.

13 minutes ago, frenin said:

They do have reasons to do so, other different and understandable thing is that you don't like said reasons or you are not convinced by them.

If they had 'reasons' then George has yet to give us those reasons. We have no idea why the rebels wanted to topple the Targaryen dynasty.

13 minutes ago, frenin said:

The rebels didn't kill the "rightful heirs", Tywin did, pin Tywin's actions on the rebels is like pining Balon's attack on the Reach on the rebels, i don't understand why one is, and it's quite clear by Ned's reaction that that wasn't the plan, Robert's reaction do say to us he was already having that in mind  even if he didn't tell that to his buddies.

Tywin killed Elia, Rhaenys, and Aegon in Robert's name - he was his man then, and Robert saw him as his man, and rewarded him for his actions.

13 minutes ago, frenin said:

Aegon was clinically too depressed to do anything, not every child would grow to be Aegon the Unhappy and honestly only a fool would've taken chances, why would they?? Because it was the right thing to do according to some loyalists??

We don't know why both Aegon III, Viserys II, and their children never did anything. Don't invent reasons for them - the general point is that we cannot say Viserys III would have been 'honor-bound' to avenge his father and brother if he had been made king. Especially not if Tywin and Jaime would have been punished for their butchery by 'the good rebels'. Rhaegar got an honorable death in battle, there is no reason to avenge him.

13 minutes ago, frenin said:

We really don't know the racionalizations of Robert's reign but everyone understands that racionalizations are just that and they don't become history until some has passed I don't remember no one saying that he was the strongest dude with a cool warhammer, the sword being the Kingdom and Daeron being a bastard etc etc,  would be just racionalizations, as their respective counterarguments until the time settled them as established facts.

The king writes his own history, and Robert said his war hammer made him king. And that was an inspiration for Balon Greyjoy, Renly, Stannis, even Robb, to a point.

13 minutes ago, frenin said:

They wouldn't have made him King if they didn't want to, how do you know that nobody wanted him to be King?? I agree that the rebellion didn't started with the idea of him being crowned but as time passed and blood was spilled and the rebels started to become Robert's army... That doesn't ring true.

I meant that nobody wanted Robert to be king before the Rebellion - unlike Daemon Blackfyre who rose because he believed he should be king. Robert basically rose because of some woman.

Share this post


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

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.

If they toppled Aerys they’d have to put one of Aerys descendants on the throne. Madness is most likely what made them choose Robert. Who knows maybe Aegon or Viserys might inherit their grand/fathers madness. The war of the roses is an example of replacing an ugly king with a new dynasty.

 
William the conqueror had no claim to the English throne. And still he decided to invade England because he was promised the crown, and because the Pope liked him. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/28/2019 at 3:54 PM, Lord Varys said:

And in both cases people still think those houses are the rightful of their particular domains. The Boltons know they are usurpers, just as Robert knew he was usurper.

 

No, the Starks had far more people inside and outside the North recognizing their "rightful place as rulers" they Targs really ever had, Robert knows some people call him that, not many people we know of tbf.

 

 

On 10/28/2019 at 3:54 PM, Lord Varys said:

Because he accepted the crown and grew into a self-involved king who made solitary decisions?

 

Just as every King does, he couldn't back down, since the moment he had to accept the crown the rest is history.

 

 

On 10/28/2019 at 3:54 PM, Lord Varys said:

We simply don't know what Robert knew or didn't know - on both a conscious and unconscious level. On his deathbed he admits Rhaegar has Lyanna, he does not expect her to join her in death. That's not the kind of thing you say of a man you believe raped a woman multiple times.

No, that's not true.

Robert reached for the flagon and refilled his cup. "You see what she does to me, Ned." The king seated himself, cradling his wine cup. "My loving wife. The mother of my children." The rage was gone from him now; in his eyes Ned saw something sad and scared. "I should not have hit her. That was not … that was not kingly." He stared down at his hands, as if he did not quite know what they were. "I was always strong … no one could stand before me, no one. How do you fight someone if you can't hit them?" Confused, the king shook his head. "Rhaegar … Rhaegar won, damn him. I killed him, Ned, I drove the spike right through that black armor into his black heart, and he died at my feet. They made up songs about it. Yet somehow he still won. He has Lyanna now, and I have her." The king drained his cup.

 

Robert's reasoning here, and he was alive and kicking here because that statement was before the fatal hunting, is clear as day, Lyanna and Rhaegar are dead, thus "he has her",  Robert and Cersei is alive, thus, "Bobby has her", there is no hidden meaning there, Robert says that Rhaegar somehow still won, Rhaegar and Lyanna loving each other is pretty straight forward.

 

How could they have all been so blind? The truth was there in front of them all the time, written on the children's faces. Ned felt sick. "I remember Robert as he was the day he took the throne, every inch a king," he said quietly. "A thousand other women might have loved him with all their hearts. What did he do to make you hate him so?"
Her eyes burned, green fire in the dusk, like the lioness that was her sigil. "The night of our wedding feast, the first time we shared a bed, he called me by your sister's name. He was on top of me, in me, stinking of wine, and he whispered Lyanna."
Ned Stark thought of pale blue roses, and for a moment he wanted to weep. "I do not know which of you I pity most."

 

Ned gave him his answer. "You will, my lord."
"Good," he said, smiling. "I will give Lyanna your love, Ned. Take care of my children for me."
The words twisted in Ned's belly like a knife. For a moment he was at a loss. He could not bring himself to lie. Then he remembered the bastards: little Barra at her mother's breast, Mya in the Vale, Gendry at his forge, and all the others. "I shall … guard your children as if they were my own," he said slowly.

 

 

Is quite clear that Robert never knew Lyanna never loved him and wasted his life chasing a self dellusional ghost, but Lyanna not loving Robert doesn't automatically mean she loved Rhaegar or even she didn't develop the kind of Stockholm syndrome Dany will develop later with Drogo.

 

 

On 10/28/2019 at 3:54 PM, Lord Varys said:

Pretending we have the full picture of the Rhaegar-Lyanna story - or that we have an accurate picture of what the various POVs and non-POVs knew about them is not very smart. We know that George reveals things people know piece by piece. We had Ned's POV and he never told us who Jon's mother was.

 

I never claimed to know what happened, i merely said that both friends and foes agree on the abduction tale, till now at least, the only difference is that friends and foes give Rhaegar differents degrees and kinds of guilt and motivations but what no one, friend or foe, ever mention is Lyanna's pov.

 

On 10/28/2019 at 3:54 PM, Lord Varys said:

If they had 'reasons' then George has yet to give us those reasons. We have no idea why the rebels wanted to topple the Targaryen dynasty.

 

On that much we agree, we can imagine said reasons, but we can't really say those were the reasons Martin have/had in mind but the idea that they just woke on morning during the war and agree that  Robert should be King with no argument whatsoever, they just felt like doing is very unlikely.

 

 

On 10/28/2019 at 3:54 PM, Lord Varys said:

Tywin killed Elia, Rhaenys, and Aegon in Robert's name - he was his man then, and Robert saw him as his man, and rewarded him for his actions.

 

He killed them for his own personal reasons,  he was his man by then as the Greyjoys were when they attacked Shield Islands, who also joined the Rebellion after the Trident.

And Robert didn't reward him for killing the kids, one thing is that on the outside it  might look like it, but we readers know that wasn't like that.

 

 

On 10/28/2019 at 3:54 PM, Lord Varys said:

We don't know why both Aegon III, Viserys II, and their children never did anything. Don't invent reasons for them - the general point is that we cannot say Viserys III would have been 'honor-bound' to avenge his father and brother if he had been made king. Especially not if Tywin and Jaime would have been punished for their butchery by 'the good rebels'. Rhaegar got an honorable death in battle, there is no reason to avenge him.

 

I've never pretend to know why Viserys didn't avenge his mother and family but we know for  that Aegon's state prevented him from doing much.

Viserys idolized his father and thought the good rebels didn't exist, they were the worst of the traitors, i really don't like the odds and honestly, i donn't think the rebels did either.

 

 

On 10/28/2019 at 3:54 PM, Lord Varys said:

The king writes his own history, and Robert said his war hammer made him king. And that was an inspiration for Balon Greyjoy, Renly, Stannis, even Robb, to a point.

 

Robert said the it was in the Trident when he won his crown, never that his warhammer made him King and he's stating a fact that, just as any conquest there.

Balon dreamed with the Old ways since he was a child and he wasn't the first Greyjoy in rebel, Stannis is Robert's heir, i know that is funny to play the devil's advocate but both the readers and Stannis know he's Robert's righful heir, Renly is truly the only who is actually inspired by Robert's warhammer, yo the point of keep repeating it.

 

 

On 10/28/2019 at 3:54 PM, Lord Varys said:

I meant that nobody wanted Robert to be king before the Rebellion - unlike Daemon Blackfyre who rose because he believed he should be king. Robert basically rose because of some woman.

I think Robert's reasonong is far better than Daemon, at the end of the day, both armies at some point hailed them as Kings so i really don't see the the difference.

 

Edited by frenin

Share this post


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

No, the Starks had far more people inside and outside the North recognizing their "rightful place as rulers" they Targs really ever had, Robert knows some people call him that, not many people we know of tbf.

Nobody ever calls the Baratheons the rightful rulers of Westeros, nor Robert Baratheon the rightful king.

5 minutes ago, frenin said:

Just as every King does, he couldn't back down, since the moment he had to accept the crown the rest is history.

Nobody forced him to accept this crown - and nobody forced him to develop into an aloof, self-involved dictator, who pretended he could free men from their NW vows or disinherit his own siblings. Not to mention to break marriage contracts and pretend to apologize for that.

5 minutes ago, frenin said:

Robert's reasoning here, and he was alive and kicking here because that statement was before the fatal hunting, is clear as day, Lyanna and Rhaegar are dead, thus "he has her",  Robert and Cersei is alive, thus, "Bobby has her", there is no hidden meaning there, Robert says that Rhaegar somehow still won, Rhaegar and Lyanna loving each other is pretty straight forward.

It is still odd to pretend that a rapist is with/has his rape victim in death. That makes no sense to me.

5 minutes ago, frenin said:

Is quite clear that Robert never knew Lyanna never loved him and wasted his life chasing a self dellusional ghost, but Lyanna not loving Robert doesn't automatically mean she loved Rhaegar or even she didn't develop the kind of Stockholm syndrome Dany will develop later with Drogo.

Oh, I agree that Robert may not have known what Lya thought of him before she met Rhaegar - but he may have known what she thought of Rhaegar, and what happened between her and Rhaegar after they met. Else there would have been little to no reason for jealousy - jealousy Robert apparently already felt at Harrenhal, long before Rhaegar abducted Lyanna.

5 minutes ago, frenin said:

I never claimed to know what happened, i merely said that both friends and foes agree on the abduction tale, till now at least, the only difference is that friends and foes give Rhaegar differents degrees and kinds of guilt and motivations but what no one, friend or foe, ever mention is Lyanna's pov.

They don't really agree. Dany is the only one who heard that Lya was carried away at swordpoint, and she seems to believe Lya wanted to be carried away, sort of like Dany hoped Daario would 'save her' from her marriage to Hizdahr.

5 minutes ago, frenin said:

On that much we agree, we can imagine said reasons, but we can't really say those were the reasons Martin have/had in mind but the idea that they just woke on morning during the war and agree that  Robert should be King with no argument whatsoever, they just felt like doing is very unlikely.

We still don't know.

5 minutes ago, frenin said:

He killed them for his own personal reasons,  he was his man by then as the Greyjoys were when they attacked Shield Islands, who also joined the Rebellion after the Trident.

And Robert didn't reward him for killing the kids, one thing is that on the outside it  might look like it, but we readers know that wasn't like that.

Robert married Tywin's daughter. He did reward the man. And he sees the Lannisters as his men during his conversation with Ned. He doesn't make a difference between the Stormlanders, Vale men, Northmen, and Riverlanders and the Westermen sacking KL.

He also approved of Tywin's deeds.

5 minutes ago, frenin said:

I've never pretend to know why Viserys didn't avenge his mother and family but we know for  that Aegon's state prevented him from doing much.

We know Aegon III must have dealt with Alys Rivers' son - and his dragon, if he had one - not to mention the various impostors who pretended to be Prince Daeron. There were wars and conflicts during his reign, and he prevailed. He certainly could have dealt with his other enemies, too, and one assumes he and Viserys did deal with Unwin Peake.

5 minutes ago, frenin said:

Viserys idolized his father and thought the good rebels didn't exist, they were the worst of the traitors, i really don't like the odds and honestly, i donn't think the rebels did either.

Viserys III was living in exile. If they had made him king then Ned as his regent could have told him what his father had done to deserve to be deposed.

5 minutes ago, frenin said:

Robert said the it was in the Trident when he won his crown, never that his warhammer made him King and he's stating a fact that, just as any conquest there.

I think you should reread the Baratheon appendix in ADwD.

5 minutes ago, frenin said:

Balon dreamed with the Old ways since he was a child and he wasn't the first Greyjoy in rebel, Stannis is Robert's heir, i know that is funny to play the devil's advocate but both the readers and Stannis know he's Robert's righful heir, Renly is truly the only who is actually inspired by Robert's warhammer, yo the point of keep repeating it.

Stannis doesn't know anything. He suspects that Cersei's children are not Robert's. He has no proof, meaning he is an ambitious traitor on the inside even if he accidentally correct on the outside.

Balon thought he could get away with his secession because Robert also got away with usurpation.

5 minutes ago, frenin said:

I think Robert's reasonong is far better than Daemon, at the end of the day, both armies at some point hailed them as Kings so i really don't see the the difference.

Robert thinks he is a shitty king - and he never gives any reasoning why he should be king, neither from him nor from any of the rebels. That's just not a very developed background story, and it makes no sense for the readers to pretend we know. We don't really have much information on the younger versions of Robert, Ned, Jon, or Hoster, nor their arguments and justifications for the Rebellion. We don't have many details on any of that. But we might get them in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

 Robert thinks he is a shitty king - and he never gives any reasoning why he should be king, neither from him nor from any of the rebels. That's just not a very developed background story, and it makes no sense for the readers to pretend we know. We don't really have much information on the younger versions of Robert, Ned, Jon, or Hoster, nor their arguments and justifications for the Rebellion. We don't have many details on any of that. But we might get them in the future.

Wasn't Robert's right to rule based on him being the closest relative to Targaryens other than Targaryens themselves? Other than that, it seems quite straightforward "you keep what you kill".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/28/2019 at 5:08 PM, Lord Varys said:

Nobody ever calls the Baratheons the rightful rulers of Westeros, nor Robert Baratheon the rightful king.

 

And yet very few call him usuper, isn't it odd?? And why would those 5 Kingdoms who bled fir him call him usurper anyways?? 

 

On 10/28/2019 at 5:08 PM, Lord Varys said:

Nobody forced him to accept this crown - and nobody forced him to develop into an aloof, self-involved dictator, who pretended he could free men from their NW vows or disinherit his own siblings. Not to mention to break marriage contracts and pretend to apologize for that.

 

The option wasn't an option, Robb had to accept the crowning and later?? He acted like every  other King, you name it Jaeharys, Aegon, Joffrey or Stannis, making and unmaking laws, all of them behave like self involved dictators and i don't even understand what the breaking of the bethrothal had to do with the crowning, in the same situation Robb would have done the same, him being King or his last name being Clegane/Payne wouldn't have changed that.

 

 

 

On 10/28/2019 at 5:08 PM, Lord Varys said:

It is still odd to pretend that a rapist is with/has his rape victim in death. That makes no sense to me.

 

It doesn't has to make sense to you, it has to make sense for Robert and he believes that, Robert has Cersei even if there is no love between them, Rhaegar may posses Lyanna even if there is no love between them.

 

 

On 10/28/2019 at 5:08 PM, Lord Varys said:

Oh, I agree that Robert may not have known what Lya thought of him before she met Rhaegar - but he may have known what she thought of Rhaegar, and what happened between her and Rhaegar after they met. Else there would have been little to no reason for jealousy - jealousy Robert apparently already felt at Harrenhal, long before Rhaegar abducted Lyanna.

 

 Those two are intertwined, if Robert knows Lyanna loved/really liked Rhaegar, he can safely know what how she felt about him and Robert feels a lot of things but he don't feel jealousy, he feels rage because someone has abducted and raped his bethrothed and he feels insultd by Rhaegar's actions in Harrenhall but he don't really feel jealous of Rhaegar.

 

 

On 10/28/2019 at 5:08 PM, Lord Varys said:

They don't really agree. Dany is the only one who heard that Lya was carried away at swordpoint, and she seems to believe Lya wanted to be carried away, sort of like Dany hoped Daario would 'save her' from her marriage to Hizdahr.

 

Dany can only heard those stories from second sources, very loyalists sources and those sources conclude that Lyanna was carried by swordpoint, Dany is actually the one embelleshing it, Dany don't seem to believe Lyana wanted to be carried away but that is the proper way of showing someone you love them because wel, Rhaegar did thus it has to be, Lyanna is irrelevant for Dany.

 

 

On 10/28/2019 at 5:08 PM, Lord Varys said:

We still don't know.

 

You think they just felt like doing it?? 

 

 

On 10/28/2019 at 5:08 PM, Lord Varys said:

Robert married Tywin's daughter. He did reward the man. And he sees the Lannisters as his men during his conversation with Ned. He doesn't make a difference between the Stormlanders, Vale men, Northmen, and Riverlanders and the Westermen sacking KL.

He also approved of Tywin's deeds.

He didn't reward Tywin for that, Robert didn't marry Cersei because of  Tywin's deeds in KL, he married her later on because Cersei seemed the best option available.

And yes Robert sees the Lannisters as his men 15  years later when he's been married with Cersei for 14 years, it isn't really strange.

He condoned those actions.

 

 

On 10/28/2019 at 5:08 PM, Lord Varys said:

We know Aegon III must have dealt with Alys Rivers' son - and his dragon, if he had one - not to mention the various impostors who pretended to be Prince Daeron. There were wars and conflicts during his reign, and he prevailed. He certainly could have dealt with his other enemies, too, and one assumes he and Viserys did deal with Unwin Peake.

 

Do we know that?? We know that he had to face impostors and turmoils but to that to reach the point of rebellion and never been mentioned is very unlikely, we are not told about any war that was fought during his reign.

 

 

On 10/28/2019 at 5:08 PM, Lord Varys said:

Viserys III was living in exile. If they had made him king then Ned as his regent could have told him what his father had done to deserve to be deposed.

 

Yeah and Viserys may believe it and everything would be fine or Viserys may have not believe and the rebels heads would eventually end on spikes,  the question is simple, why would they they want to take any chances??

 

 

On 10/28/2019 at 5:08 PM, Lord Varys said:

I think you should reread the Baratheon appendix in ADwD.

 

Lmao, i didn't know that, hilarious, I think Robert is jesting when he says that right?? 

 

 

On 10/28/2019 at 5:08 PM, Lord Varys said:

Stannis doesn't know anything. He suspects that Cersei's children are not Robert's. He has no proof, meaning he is an ambitious traitor on the inside even if he accidentally correct on the outside.

Balon thought he could get away with his secession because Robert also got away with usurpation.

You are confusing, not having proof of something with not knowing something.

Stannis knows Cersei's kids are not Robert's, he doesn't have evidence but he knows it, he is an ambitious traitor on the outside, everyone should think his is just a power grab but we and he know he is right.

Balon thought he could get away with his secession because Robert might not have the same support a proper Targ King might have, one only should've count the amount of Kingdoms that declare for Robert and do the maths but that's too much for Ol Balon.

 

 

On 10/28/2019 at 5:08 PM, Lord Varys said:

Robert thinks he is a shitty king.

A little bit of oranges and apples here.

 

On 10/28/2019 at 5:08 PM, Lord Varys said:

and he never gives any reasoning why he should be king, neither from him nor from any of the rebels. That's just not a very developed background story, and it makes no sense for the readers to pretend we know.

The readers don't pretend we know, we pretend they exist and try to guess what they were.

 

On 10/28/2019 at 5:08 PM, Lord Varys said:

We don't really have much information on the younger versions of Robert, Ned, Jon, or Hoster, nor their arguments and justifications for the Rebellion. We don't have many details on any of that. But we might get them in the future.

Fair enough.

Edited by frenin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After Aegon and Rhaenys murders, it was difficult to think of another Targaryen king. Tywin and Robert would fear the consequences when this king, Vyserys likely, become of age. Besides Robert was mad about Rhaegar. And wouldn't bow to another Targaryen.

Aerys had been scary enough. But he was not the only unhinged of the family. The lords, the rebels at least, took this opportunity to change the kingdom's ruling family.

Share this post


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

Wasn't Robert's right to rule based on him being the closest relative to Targaryens other than Targaryens themselves? Other than that, it seems quite straightforward "you keep what you kill".

That is the 'maester argument' that's cited - but Robert himself credits his war hammer.

Neither of those explanations help to explain when and why exactly Robert wanted to be king or when the rebels started to make the Jon Umber moron argument (i.e. 'Why don't you take the crown???') because unlike, say, the Blackfyre Rebellion (where we get a number of reasons why Daemon Blackfyre wanted to be king) Robert Baratheon did not rebel against the Iron Throne to become king. He rebelled because he had issues with his cousin over a woman and because the king wanted his head.

But even if the king wants your head - if you never wanted to be king before it is still somewhat odd (or rather: there is missing characterization and information there) that he suddenly decided to want to be king.

Because if take George's own SSM seriously, then Robert publicly became a pretender to the Iron Throne around the time of the Trident - i.e. possibly before Rhaegar's death but definitely before the deaths of Aerys II and the children.

5 hours ago, frenin said:

And yet very few call him usuper, isn't it odd?? And why would those 5 Kingdoms who bled fir him call him usurper anyways?? 

Robert himself makes it clear that he is still known as 'the Usurper'. That the people at his court don't call Robert 'usurper' to his face - or the faces of the Stark or Lannister POVs is hardly surprising, is it?

Robert's followers also know that they helped to usurp a throne - the fact that they were successful doesn't change that they know what they did.

5 hours ago, frenin said:

The option wasn't an option, Robb had to accept the crowning and later?? He acted like every  other King, you name it Jaeharys, Aegon, Joffrey or Stannis, making and unmaking laws, all of them behave like self involved dictators and i don't even understand what the breaking of the bethrothal had to do with the crowning, in the same situation Robb would have done the same, him being King or his last name being Clegane/Payne wouldn't have changed that.

Robb certainly could have declined the offer to be proclaimed king. And he should have.

Robb becomes a very authoritarian king - in the beginning he still trust and heeds the advice of his mother and other people, later he becomes less and less approachable, and basically does only what he wants, following only his own desires. He wants to make Jon his heir and disinherit his only surviving sibling, he wants to ship his mother to Seagard, he executes one of his principal supporters against the advice of his own followers, he breaks a marriage contract and marries a woman who contributes nothing to his war effort, etc.

A man in his position - the position of a king in war who needed to keep his allies sweet less they abandon or betray him - should have acted less imperious and more conciliatory.

5 hours ago, frenin said:

It doesn't has to make sense to you, it has to make sense for Robert and he believes that, Robert has Cersei even if there is no love between them, Rhaegar may posses Lyanna even if there is no love between them.

It makes no sense to believe that a man who is married to a woman in life (Robert-Cersei) is equivalent to a dead man and his dead rape victim (Rhaegar-Lyanna, if we believe Robert actually thought Rhaegar raped her).

5 hours ago, frenin said:

Those two are intertwined, if Robert knows Lyanna loved/really liked Rhaegar, he can safely know what how she felt about him and Robert feels a lot of things but he don't feel jealousy, he feels rage because someone has abducted and raped his bethrothed and he feels insultd by Rhaegar's actions in Harrenhall but he don't really feel jealous of Rhaegar.

Sure, according to Yandel Robert was mad with jealousy from the moment Rhaegar crowned Lyanna at Harrenhal. He tells us that, at the time, Robert brushed the incident aside but supposedly the people closest to him realized that this was a big issue for him. And it can only have been jealousy and the fear to lose Lyanna to Rhaegar. Else he could have really brushed the thing off.

5 hours ago, frenin said:

Dany can only heard those stories from second sources, very loyalists sources and those sources conclude that Lyanna was carried by swordpoint, Dany is actually the one embelleshing it, Dany don't seem to believe Lyana wanted to be carried away but that is the proper way of showing someone you love them because wel, Rhaegar did thus it has to be, Lyanna is irrelevant for Dany.

The point being is that no other source but Dany tells us that Lyanna was carried away by swordpoint. Her story is the most detailed version so far. The other versions imply an abduction, but don't make it explicit. To carry somebody away, etc. isn't all that specific, is it?

5 hours ago, frenin said:

He didn't reward Tywin for that, Robert didn't marry Cersei because of  Tywin's deeds in KL, he married her later on because Cersei seemed the best option available.

I know there were other reasons in addition to the Sack for Robert's marriage to Cersei. But the point is that Robert marrying Cersei was still a huge sign of favor and a reward. If Robert had disapproved of Tywin's doing at KL he had a very odd way of showing it.

5 hours ago, frenin said:

And yes Robert sees the Lannisters as his men 15  years later when he's been married with Cersei for 14 years, it isn't really strange.

He gives the implication that he believed they were his men back then, too.

5 hours ago, frenin said:

Do we know that?? We know that he had to face impostors and turmoils but to that to reach the point of rebellion and never been mentioned is very unlikely, we are not told about any war that was fought during his reign.

Do the math. The last dragon dies in 153 AC. Harrenhal - where Alys Rivers and her son are at the end of FaB - is only awarded to Lucas Lothston in 151 AC, meaning Harrenhal was either without a lord or in the hands of Alys and her son for quite some time. Chances are pretty good that Aemond's son by Alys Rivers and she herself met her end in the late 140s or around 150 AC. And considering that this could have been a pretty big thing if Alys' son truly had a dragon (or were to claim Silverwing or the Cannibal along the road) we can also assume that some or all the healthy and big Targaryen dragons still alive at that point (Morning, Silverwing, and the Cannibal) died in that war. With the Cannibal and Silverwing still riderless in 136 AC there is a pretty good chance that either Viserys or Baela is going to claim another one. Especially the latter seems to be very keen to become a dragonrider again. And if Rhaena and Morning are killed in another dragon fight (and perhaps Baela, too) - with perhaps another Targaryen woman being fed to a dragon - then this is going to only to add more fuel to Aegon III's hatred of dragons.

There are other signs that the Crown didn't have access to Harrenhal for quite some time. Dark Sister was recovered years later (in fact, I'd not be surprised if Alys' son recovered Dark Sister and wielded it in his war against the false king, Aegon III, Larys Strong was buried at Harrenhal years later, and so on.

5 hours ago, frenin said:

Yeah and Viserys may believe it and everything would be fine or Viserys may have not believe and the rebels heads would eventually end on spikes,  the question is simple, why would they they want to take any chances??

Because this is a patriarchal world where sons usually succeed their fathers?

5 hours ago, frenin said:

You are confusing, not having proof of something with not knowing something.

Stannis knows Cersei's kids are not Robert's, he doesn't have evidence but he knows it, he is an ambitious traitor on the outside, everyone should think his is just a power grab but we and he know he is right.

Stannis only believes that Cersei's children are not Robert's. He doesn't know. In fact, he cannot know, since he apparently never asked Cersei about that nor did she tell him nor did he overhear her or Jaime admitting it.

We know that Stannis is correct ... but he doesn't know that. Which makes him an ambitious traitor.

4 hours ago, BalerionTheCat said:

After Aegon and Rhaenys murders, it was difficult to think of another Targaryen king. Tywin and Robert would fear the consequences when this king, Vyserys likely, become of age. Besides Robert was mad about Rhaegar. And wouldn't bow to another Targaryen.

Aerys had been scary enough. But he was not the only unhinged of the family. The lords, the rebels at least, took this opportunity to change the kingdom's ruling family.

But nothing like that is ever stated anywhere, is it? Nor does this make much sense if we assume Robert proclaimed himself before the Sack (which he supposedly did).

The reason why a man as law-abiding and correct as Ned actually wanted to make Robert king rather than any of the innocent children or grandchildren of the Mad King is actually pretty confusing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/29/2019 at 12:08 AM, Lord Varys said:

Robert himself makes it clear that he is still known as 'the Usurper'. That the people at his court don't call Robert 'usurper' to his face - or the faces of the Stark or Lannister POVs is hardly surprising, is it?

Robert's followers also know that they helped to usurp a throne - the fact that they were successful doesn't change that they know what they did.

Robert only says that there are still some people calling him Usurper, some people calling him Usurper is not the same as he's being known as a Usurper by everyone and the only ones who we see calling him usurper are Dany and Jorah and later on Barri B, i don't know the issues the northmen, post Whispering woods would have by  calling him that after the in fact cut ties with the Baratheons. Even in Dorne we don't hear a thing about him being a usurper, even when they are trying to restore the Targs, which makes sense they are restoring the Targs out of vengeance not a lost loyalty, the only ones i can really think about being stauch in their loyalism, thus believing Robert an usurper, are those in the Cracklaw Point followingthe Cracklaw way

Robert's followers know they help to overthrow a mad dynasty, they don't see it as usurpation and honestly why would they??

 

 

On 10/29/2019 at 12:08 AM, Lord Varys said:

Robb certainly could have declined the offer to be proclaimed king. And he should have.

Robb becomes a very authoritarian king - in the beginning he still trust and heeds the advice of his mother and other people, later he becomes less and less approachable, and basically does only what he wants, following only his own desires. He wants to make Jon his heir and disinherit his only surviving sibling, he wants to ship his mother to Seagard, he executes one of his principal supporters against the advice of his own followers, he breaks a marriage contract and marries a woman who contributes nothing to his war effort, etc.

A man in his position - the position of a king in war who needed to keep his allies sweet less they abandon or betray him - should have acted less imperious and more conciliatory.

He couldn't declined the offer, especially because there was no offer.

Again, Jaeharys, Aegon, Viserys I, Joffrey or Stannis, every King is authoritarian, are you saying that Robb shouldn't have become one?? Completely agree.

Shipping off Cat and disineriting Sansa just as killing Karstark, who basically gave no other options, weren't bad calls, even if the Sansa thing is kind of pointless anyway.

 

 

On 10/29/2019 at 12:08 AM, Lord Varys said:

It makes no sense to believe that a man who is married to a woman in life (Robert-Cersei) is equivalent to a dead man and his dead rape victim (Rhaegar-Lyanna, if we believe Robert actually thought Rhaegar raped her).

 

It makes no sense to you, the idea that a person belongs to those who raped them is kind of mythological anyway, Robert indeed thought that.  both are in loveless situations but both the dead and the living are stuck to each other,  and we don't have a reason to believe that he believed otherwise because he's always talking about the number of times Rhaegar raped her, the idea that Robert is that good actor is... unlikeñy to say the least.

 

 

On 10/29/2019 at 12:08 AM, Lord Varys said:

Sure, according to Yandel Robert was mad with jealousy from the moment Rhaegar crowned Lyanna at Harrenhal. He tells us that, at the time, Robert brushed the incident aside but supposedly the people closest to him realized that this was a big issue for him. And it can only have been jealousy and the fear to lose Lyanna to Rhaegar. Else he could have really brushed the thing off.

 

Robert felt insulted by Rhaegar, just as Elia was insulted by Rhaegar and we are told that Robert brood over the insult, not about the potential meanings of that insult and the idea that he thought he could "lose" Lyanna is not an idea, Rhaegar was married with the Princess of Dorne, not a very deal to dissolve and his bethrothal was very settled.

Yandel never says Robert was jealous.

 

And when the triumphant Prince of Dragonstone named Lyanna Stark, daughter of the Lord of Winterfell, the queen of love and beauty, placing a garland of blue roses in her lap with the tip of his lance, the lickspittle lords gathered around the king declared that further proof of his perfidy. Why would the prince have thus given insult to his own wife, the Princess Elia Martell of Dorne (who was present), unless it was to help him gain the Iron Throne? The crowning of the Stark girl, who was by all reports a wild and boyish young thing with none of the Princess Elia’s delicate beauty, could only have been meant to win the allegiance of Winterfell to Prince Rhaegar’s cause, Symond Staunton suggested to the king. Yet if this were true, why did Lady Lyanna’s brothers seem so distraught at the honor the prince had bestowed upon her? Brandon Stark, the heir to Winterfell, had to be restrained from confronting Rhaegar at what he took as a slight upon his sister’s honor, for Lyanna Stark had long been betrothed to Robert Baratheon, Lord of Storm’s End. Eddard Stark, Brandon’s younger brother and a close friend to Lord Robert, was calmer but no more pleased. As for Robert Baratheon himself, some say he laughed at the prince’s gesture, claiming that Rhaegar had done no more than pay Lyanna her due … but those who knew him better say the young lord brooded on the insult, and that his heart hardened toward the Prince of Dragonstone from that day forth. Yandel

 

We really don't know why Robert  felt insulted, it could be that Rhaegar's action was as insulting to him as they were for Elia,  because as Brandon he thought Rhaegar had dishonored Lyanna, because of jealosy or because of something entirely different, there is no dilemma here.

 

 

On 10/29/2019 at 12:08 AM, Lord Varys said:

The point being is that no other source but Dany tells us that Lyanna was carried away by swordpoint. Her story is the most detailed version so far. The other versions imply an abduction, but don't make it explicit. To carry somebody away, etc. isn't all that specific, is it?

 

But you are mixing apples with oranges, Dany's knowing that Rhaegar carried Lyanna by swordpoint at no point negates that Dany might have a embellished idea about being carried by swordpoint entails, but there is no way Dany could just made up that story.

What the others versions  don't imply is consent.

 

On 10/29/2019 at 12:08 AM, Lord Varys said:

I know there were other reasons in addition to the Sack for Robert's marriage to Cersei. But the point is that Robert marrying Cersei was still a huge sign of favor and a reward. If Robert had disapproved of Tywin's doing at KL he had a very odd way of showing it.

 

You said it, it's a sign, you migt say that others  saw it as a reward but it makes no sense that we readers see it as such when the Sack was never mented as one of the reasons Robert married Cersei, because Robert marrying Cersei wasn't even his idea and had to be convinced to it, not because he had issues with Tywin that we know of, but because he simply didn't want to marry.

 

 

On 10/29/2019 at 12:08 AM, Lord Varys said:

He gives the implication that he believed they were his men back then, too.

 

No he donesn't, it's a just a man talking with hindsight.

 

On 10/29/2019 at 12:08 AM, Lord Varys said:

Do the math. The last dragon dies in 153 AC. Harrenhal - where Alys Rivers and her son are at the end of FaB - is only awarded to Lucas Lothston in 151 AC, meaning Harrenhal was either without a lord or in the hands of Alys and her son for quite some time. Chances are pretty good that Aemond's son by Alys Rivers and she herself met her end in the late 140s or around 150 AC. And considering that this could have been a pretty big thing if Alys' son truly had a dragon (or were to claim Silverwing or the Cannibal along the road) we can also assume that some or all the healthy and big Targaryen dragons still alive at that point (Morning, Silverwing, and the Cannibal) died in that war. With the Cannibal and Silverwing still riderless in 136 AC there is a pretty good chance that either Viserys or Baela is going to claim another one. Especially the latter seems to be very keen to become a dragonrider again. And if Rhaena and Morning are killed in another dragon fight (and perhaps Baela, too) - with perhaps another Targaryen woman being fed to a dragon - then this is going to only to add more fuel to Aegon III's hatred of dragons.

There are other signs that the Crown didn't have access to Harrenhal for quite some time. Dark Sister was recovered years later (in fact, I'd not be surprised if Alys' son recovered Dark Sister and wielded it in his war against the false king, Aegon III, Larys Strong was buried at Harrenhal years later, and so on.

 

That is actually a very well thought theory that i completely buy but we are never tould sbout any war fought during the Broken King's reign andanother Dance is not something that would go unmentioned.

 

 

On 10/29/2019 at 12:08 AM, Lord Varys said:

Because this is a patriarchal world where sons usually succeed their fathers?

 

So, they should just gamble their lives because this a patriarchal world where sons usually succeed their fathers??What kind of reasoning is that??

 

 

On 10/29/2019 at 12:08 AM, Lord Varys said:

Stannis only believes that Cersei's children are not Robert's. He doesn't know. In fact, he cannot know, since he apparently never asked Cersei about that nor did she tell him nor did he overhear her or Jaime admitting it.

No, Stannis knows Cersei's childrens are not Robert's but Stannis don't have evidences of that,  

 

On 10/29/2019 at 12:08 AM, Lord Varys said:

We know that Stannis is correct ... but he doesn't know that. Which makes him an ambitious traitor.

 

He knows that, he never even once shows any doubts about that. It doesn't make him an ambitious traitor, well he is because he did let Robert die to get the Throne but that's not the point,  in anyway you see it.

 

Edited by frenin

Share this post


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

That is the 'maester argument' that's cited - but Robert himself credits his war hammer.

Neither of those explanations help to explain when and why exactly Robert wanted to be king or when the rebels started to make the Jon Umber moron argument (i.e. 'Why don't you take the crown???') because unlike, say, the Blackfyre Rebellion (where we get a number of reasons why Daemon Blackfyre wanted to be king) Robert Baratheon did not rebel against the Iron Throne to become king. He rebelled because he had issues with his cousin over a woman and because the king wanted his head.

 But even if the king wants your head - if you never wanted to be king before it is still somewhat odd (or rather: there is missing characterization and information there) that he suddenly decided to want to be king.

Because if take George's own SSM seriously, then Robert publicly became a pretender to the Iron Throne around the time of the Trident - i.e. possibly before Rhaegar's death but definitely before the deaths of Aerys II and the children.

I don't think he wanted to be king. What I think happened is that he wanted to have Targaryens off the throne so much that he accepted being a king to minimize the possibility of a Targaryen pretender returning and claiming the throne.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, BalerionTheCat said:

Aerys had been scary enough. But he was not the only unhinged of the family. The lords, the rebels at least, took this opportunity to change the kingdom's ruling family

And instill at least a bit of forced stability to the realm? I always thought going into a Regency would only delay future problems whereas simply plonking Robert on the IT would make everything about the Rebellion set in stone.

And by then there were fair few even thinking about the Targs as ruling dinasty. For me, if the Trident was decisive, the sacking of KL made it irreversible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/24/2019 at 9:39 AM, 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? 

Cregan didnt do what you believe he did. 

He crowned Rhaenyra's son. And wanted to kill everyone who supported Aegon II.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

But nothing like that is ever stated anywhere, is it? Nor does this make much sense if we assume Robert proclaimed himself before the Sack (which he supposedly did).

I don't think Robert was thinking beyond killing Rhaegar. After the Trident, they had 2 choices: a) Surrendering to Aerys. Not an option. b) Going to KL and removing Aerys. And then...

Robert said he didn't want the crown. That Jon and Ned pushed him to. Because he had the blood for the support of the other kingdoms. I believe it.

Maybe there could have been a regency with Aegon. But Tywin killed it. Maybe because Robert was the only way to have Cersei queen.

15 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The reason why a man as law-abiding and correct as Ned actually wanted to make Robert king rather than any of the innocent children or grandchildren of the Mad King is actually pretty confusing.

Because he was sure they were all dead any other way. By declaring Robert king, they were giving someone to oppose the mad king. The Freys, the Lannisters, others, had an alternative to Aerys. How desperate it could seem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Aldarion said:

I don't think he wanted to be king. What I think happened is that he wanted to have Targaryens off the throne so much that he accepted being a king to minimize the possibility of a Targaryen pretender returning and claiming the throne.

Well, why and when exactly Robert started to transfer his hatred for Rhaegar to all Targaryens is also something we don't know yet. I mean, compared to Ned he was pretty much not harmed by any of the Targaryens. He didn't lose a family member or anything. Yet Ned is the one defending/standing up for Rhaegar's and Aerys II's children repeatedly, while Robert wants to see them all dead.

I certainly can see why after the Trident Robert might be in as strong a position overall that there would be people pushing him to claim the throne (sort of like they pushed Robb after his successes in the field) - but only after the Trident, not before. And we still don't know yet when they proclaimed Robert king - but there are hints that it might have been before the Trident (the claim, for instance, that Aerys II had realized that Robert was the greatest threat to House Targaryen since Daemon Blackfyre months before the Trident).

1 hour ago, BalerionTheCat said:

I don't think Robert was thinking beyond killing Rhaegar. After the Trident, they had 2 choices: a) Surrendering to Aerys. Not an option. b) Going to KL and removing Aerys. And then...

See above. If he was proclaimed before the Trident then they did think about all that. And we still have no information on any of that. People like to fill this void with their own speculation, but the fact is that we know more about the motivations of the first two Blackfyre pretenders to become king than we do know about Robert's. And that is very odd.

And it is those reader speculation that causes people to come up with concepts like 'people thought the Targaryens lost their claim to the Iron Throne due to Aerys II's actions' - when in fact nothing in the books indicate they did. We don't even know whether King Robert - after his official coronation (we also don't know when exactly that happened) - formally disinherited the Targaryens in exile. And if he did so, what 'legal reasons' he gave for doing that.

1 hour ago, BalerionTheCat said:

Robert said he didn't want the crown. That Jon and Ned pushed him to. Because he had the blood for the support of the other kingdoms. I believe it.

We know that conversation, but we have no idea about its context. We don't know when that happened, nor why it came up that the rebels would want a pretender of their own. Nor do we know whether Robert accurately remembers things there and did not actually want to have the glory of a crown back then.

1 hour ago, BalerionTheCat said:

Maybe there could have been a regency with Aegon. But Tywin killed it. Maybe because Robert was the only way to have Cersei queen.

With both Aegon or Viserys.

1 hour ago, BalerionTheCat said:

Because he was sure they were all dead any other way. By declaring Robert king, they were giving someone to oppose the mad king. The Freys, the Lannisters, others, had an alternative to Aerys. How desperate it could seem.

Sure, there could be reasons for that. I agree that proclaiming Robert a pretender certainly would have given the rebel movement a leader to rally around, especially before the Trident. It would have also raised the stakes, forcing undecided people to choose sides, etc. But if that's the case then we still don't know that story. We have no clue how this rebellion which started with a lord defending his former wards turned into a rebellion where a new king was supposed to be installed. And that's actually a pretty important part of that story, especially since we basically know the motivations of all the other pretenders, from Aegon the Uncrowned to the (first two) Blackfyre pretenders much better than those of Robert Baratheon.

Share this post


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

If he was proclaimed before the Trident then they did think about all that. And we still have no information on any of that. People like to fill this void with their own speculation,

You yourself like to fill the gaps with your own speculations :D

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

the fact is that we know more about the motivations of the first two Blackfyre pretenders to become king than we do know about Robert's. And that is very odd.

Yes, there are plenty of things unsaid about the rebellion. Starting with Rhaegar fucking everything while he seemed so smart and excellent. Georges said everything will be know by the end of ASoIaF. So it must be important it remains hidden so far.

There may be some subtleties, like how Aerys became so convinced of betrayal that he asked the head of so many young men, heirs and lords, men related to Lyanna. But IMHO, how Robert came to the idea of becoming king, before or after the Triden, seems straightforward in comparison.

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...