Why not label Robert a kinslayer?

[Angel Eyes]

So of the various things Robert's detractors bring up, ie calling him the Usurper, why does nobody bring up the fact that he killed one of his kinsmen in Rhaegar?

[Lord Varys]

Because when George first wrote AGoT Robert Baratheon and Rhaegar weren't exactly second cousins.

[frenin]

1 hour ago, Angel Eyes said:

So of the various things Robert's detractors bring up, ie calling him the Usurper, why does nobody bring up the fact that he killed one of his kinsmen in Rhaegar?

I don't really think that being second cousins is considered kinslaying, i think it refers to the most inmediate family.

[EccentricHorse11]

Same reason why marrying your second cousin is  not considered incest.

[Lollygag]

Good question. I wonder that too and have been too lazy to try to work out a pattern of usage. It's more complex than it appears, but offhand, I wonder if both parties need to acknowledge the kinship. This would explain Rhaegar and Robert. If Rhaegar acknowledged it, it would legitimize any claim Robert should make, and if Robert acknowledged it, this would make him presumably a challenging claimant which was something he ultimately got stuck with but didn't want. But maybe that's wrong. Maybe they just use it when it's convenient.

See below. Stark and Karstark are claimed as kin going back thousands of years in which case about anyone killing anyone in Westeros probably qualifies as kinslaying. The underlined seems to emphasize the mutual expectation of true loyalty, so maybe kin no matter how far gone + strong loyalty betrayed is the difference? The Targs and Baratheons haven't been close for a long time, I believe.

ASOS Catelyn III

Lord Rickard Karstark dipped his head stiffly. "For that much, I thank you. But for naught else." He had dressed for death in a long black wool surcoat emblazoned with the white sunburst of his House. "The blood of the First Men flows in my veins as much as yours, boy. You would do well to remember that. I was named for your grandfather. I raised my banners against King Aerys for your father, and against King Joffrey for you. At Oxcross and the Whispering Wood and in the Battle of the Camps, I rode beside you, and I stood with Lord Eddard on the Trident. We are kin, Stark and Karstark."

"This kinship did not stop you from betraying me," Robb said. "And it will not save you now. Kneel, my lord."

Lord Rickard had spoken truly, Catelyn knew. The Karstarks traced their descent to Karlon Stark, a younger son of Winterfell who had put down a rebel lord a thousand years ago, and been granted lands for his valor. The castle he built had been named Karl's Hold, but that soon became Karhold, and over the centuries the Karhold Starks had become Karstarks.

"Old gods or new, it makes no matter," Lord Rickard told her son, "no man is so accursed as the kinslayer."

"Kneel, traitor," Robb said again. "Or must I have them force your head onto the block?"

Lord Karstark knelt. "The gods shall judge you, as you have judged me." He laid his head upon the block.

"Rickard Karstark, Lord of Karhold." Robb lifted the heavy axe with both hands. "Here in sight of gods and men, I judge you guilty of murder and high treason. In mine own name I condemn you. With mine own hand I take your life. Would you speak a final word?"

"Kill me, and be cursed. You are no king of mine."

The axe crashed down. Heavy and well-honed, it killed at a single blow, but it took three to sever the man's head from his body, and by the time it was done both living and dead were drenched in blood. Robb flung the poleaxe down in disgust, and turned wordless to the heart tree. He stood shaking with his hands half-clenched and the rain running down his cheeks. Gods forgive him, Catelyn prayed in silence. He is only a boy, and he had no other choice.

 

-----------

Adding - some sort of expectation of mutual loyalty mixed with Westeros' tribal society puts kinslaying more in line with kingslaying and guest right as sins of betrayals - Dante's lowest level of hell.

[Vaith]

9 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

Good question. I wonder that too and have been too lazy to try to work out a pattern of usage. It's more complex than it appears, but offhand, I wonder if both parties need to acknowledge the kinship. This would explain Rhaegar and Robert. If Rhaegar acknowledged it, it would legitimize any claim Robert should make, and if Robert acknowledged it, this would make him presumably a challenging claimant which was something he ultimately got stuck with but didn't want. But maybe that's wrong. Maybe they just use it when it's convenient.

See below. Stark and Karstark are claimed as kin going back thousands of years in which case about anyone killing anyone in Westeros probably qualifies as kinslaying. The underlined seems to emphasize the mutual expectation of true loyalty, so maybe kin no matter how far gone + strong loyalty betrayed is the difference? The Targs and Baratheons haven't been close for a long time, I believe.

You could possibly make a case for Stark and Karstark because the latter is a cadet branch of the former. However, it seems that in universe, most people considered Karstark's claim of potential kinslaying to be very paper-thin anyway. And yes, once you consider maternal lines (which are biologically as related to you as the Stark patriline) almost every noble in the North would be considered a potential candidate for kinslaying.

Robert and Rhaegar, meanwhile, are not from the same house. Second cousins seems distant enough that it would not be considered kin, and they never lived together as family etc. while growing up. 

[Bernie Mac]

6 minutes ago, Vaith said:

 However, it seems that in universe, most people considered Karstark's claim of potential kinslaying to be very paper-thin anyway.

Who is most people?

[The hairy bear]

Rickard Karstark accusing Robb of kinslaying on the account of a relationship a thousand years ago makes no sense at all. It seems more like a desperate attempt to save his skin than a serious argumentation. If that degree of kinship made you a kinslayer, any noble who killed any other noble should be labelled as such.

I also agree that it makes perfect sense that killing a second cousin is not considered kinslaying.

[Lollygag]

Just now, Vaith said:

You could possibly make a case for Stark and Karstark because the latter is a cadet branch of the former. However, it seems that in universe, most people considered Karstark's claim of potential kinslaying to be very paper-thin anyway. And yes, once you consider maternal lines (which are biologically as related to you as the Stark patriline) almost every noble in the North would be considered a potential candidate for kinslaying.

Robert and Rhaegar, meanwhile, are not from the same house. Second cousins seems distant enough that it would not be considered kin, and they never lived together as family etc. while growing up. 

I agree with it being paper-thin to say the least but Robb doesn't deny it and Catelyn acknowledges it as valid and even prays for Robb's forgiveness claiming he had no choice. 

Robert and Rhaegar being from another house would fit in well with the personal expectation of trust and loyalty not being there, either between the families or personally as they didn't care for each other.

I'm also thinking of Stannis and Renly who tried to kill each other (Stannis succeeded) but kinslaying doesn't seem to factor in there, either. They sound like they were always at odds personally. I don't follow the history much, but I don't recall any competing claims being called kinslaying?

 

[Angel Eyes]

4 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

I'm also thinking of Stannis and Renly who tried to kill each other (Stannis succeeded) but kinslaying doesn't seem to factor in there, either. They sound like they were always at odds personally. I don't follow the history much, but I don't recall any competing claims being called kinslaying?

Well, nobody batted an eye at killing their kin in the Dance of the Dragons.

[Lord Varys]

Rhaegar makes it quite clear that Robert Baratheon is his cousin. Steffon and Aerys II were childhood friends and first cousins.

And it makes no sense to draw a line with second cousins while we have no data yet who is considered to be close enough kin to not be called a kinslayer. 'Kin' is an open term, the idea that it refers only to close kin (i.e. the core family) is strange since the English language allows for more precise terms to refer to close family.

If George wanted to make 'kinslayer' a term referring only to close kin he shouldn't have used 'kinslayer'.

[Lord Varys]

4 minutes ago, Angel Eyes said:

Well, nobody batted an eye at killing their kin in the Dance of the Dragons.

Aemond One-Eye is rightfully condemned as Aemond the Kinslayer during the Dance.

[Vaith]

9 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Who is most people?

I may have been remembering a quote that isn't there, but I believe that only House Karstark reacting to the execution (because their lord had been executed, not because of alleged kinslaying) speaks to the consequences being pretty minor. People do not desert, or call Robb a kinslayer in the aftermath of Karstark's death.

8 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

I agree with it being paper-thin to say the least but Robb doesn't deny it and Catelyn acknowledges it as valid and even prays for Robb's forgiveness claiming he had no choice. 

Robert and Rhaegar being from another house would fit in well with the personal expectation of trust and loyalty not being there, either between the families or personally as they didn't care for each other.

I'm also thinking of Stannis and Renly who tried to kill each other (Stannis succeeded) but kinslaying doesn't seem to factor in there, either. They sound like they were always at odds personally. I don't follow the history much, but I don't recall any competing claims being called kinslaying?

The ramifications do not seem to be so great for it to be viewed as an actual act of kinslaying.

An example of a personal connection being needed is when people consider Theon to be a kinslayer for "killing" his foster brothers to whom he had no blood relation.

Stannis and Renly may have been at war, but that does not mean that they would be seen as attempted kinslayers. Perhaps Renly would have been willing to let Stannis yield and be Lord of Dragonstone. Those who know the particulars of Renly's death would likely look down on Stannis, but the fact that it was with a shadow child would probably be more shocking.

10 minutes ago, Angel Eyes said:

Well, nobody batted an eye at killing their kin in the Dance of the Dragons.

Some are condemned as kinslayers, but both sides pretty quickly commit acts that are heinous enough to make the mere kinslaying taboo look tame, so perhaps that's why there's not much of a focus.

Meanwhile, in a more peaceful time period, Maekar was labelled with the kinslayer title by some for Breakspear's more accidental death.

8 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Rhaegar makes it quite clear that Robert Baratheon is his cousin. Steffon and Aerys II were childhood friends and first cousins.

And it makes no sense to draw a line with second cousins while we have no data yet who is considered to be close enough kin to not be called a kinslayer. 'Kin' is an open term, the idea that it refers only to close kin (i.e. the core family) is strange since the English language allows for more precise terms to refer to close family.

If George wanted to make 'kinslayer' a term referring only to close kin he shouldn't have used 'kinslayer'.

Rhaegar and Robert did not seem to have that much of an intimate familial connection between each other.

It seems like some line should be drawn. Would a fourth cousin in the maternal line be considered kin, especially when you're mostly interacting with relatives of some sort in this type of society?

"Kinslaying" may be a bit open-ended, but at the end of the day, it sounds a bit nicer than something like "familicide."

[Lord Varys]

2 minutes ago, Vaith said:

Rhaegar and Robert did not seem to have that much of an intimate familial connection between each other.

That's not necessary for them being second cousins, but it stands to reason that Lord Steffon brought his sons to court more than just once or twice.

2 minutes ago, Vaith said:

It seems like some line should be drawn. Would a fourth cousin in the maternal line be considered kin, especially when you're mostly interacting with relatives of some sort in this type of society?

Sure, somewhere there is likely going to be a line. But not likely as closely as with second cousins if the term used is 'kinslayer'.

2 minutes ago, Vaith said:

"Kinslaying" may be a bit open-ended, but at the end of the day, it sounds a bit nicer than something like "familicide."

Sure, I can see why the term was used. But you cannot use it and then redefine 'kin' into referring only to parents, children, siblings, and perhaps also uncles, aunts, nephews, and nieces.

But as I said above - Robert and Rhaegar weren't imagined as second cousins originally, so this is likely the reason why the Targaryen loyalists in AGoT and ACoK talk about 'Robert the Usurper' and not also about 'Robert the Kinslayer'.

[Vaith]

1 minute ago, Lord Varys said:

That's not necessary for them being second cousins, but it stands to reason that Lord Steffon brought his sons to court more than just once or twice.

Yes, but likely not enough that they would have had a familial relationship, or be considered foster kin in the same way. 

3 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Sure, somewhere there is likely going to be a line. But not likely as closely as with second cousins if the term used is 'kinslayer'.

Sure, I can see why the term was used. But you cannot use it and then redefine 'kin' into referring only to parents, children, siblings, and perhaps also uncles, aunts, nephews, and nieces.

But as I said above - Robert and Rhaegar weren't imagined as second cousins originally, so this is likely the reason why the Targaryen loyalists in AGoT and ACoK talk about 'Robert the Usurper' and not also about 'Robert the Kinslayer'.

Well, perhaps "close kin" is the better term then -- perhaps kin you cannot marry, or those who are part of your house. But "close-kinslayer" is a clumsier term in general than mere "kinslayer."

Yes, Robert's Targaryen relation was not imagined, but other things that were not originally imagined have been grandfathered in in later instalments. The Blackfyres were not part of the story until ASOS, yet have been mentioned quite frequently in the main story after their creation, not to mention in supplementary materials. However the same "kinslayer" label hasn't been retroactively applied to Robert thus far.

[Lord Varys]

5 minutes ago, Vaith said:

Yes, but likely not enough that they would have had a familial relationship, or be considered foster kin in the same way. 

The fact that foster family or step-kin are likely also within the framework of the term 'kinslayer' only makes it clear that the term is not limited to the core family - which wouldn't really be a thing in Westeros, anyway. Family would involve more distant kin considering that this is a feudal setting where power and property are controlled by noble clans. It is your life's blood to know how you are related to someone since only that allows you to make a claim when a relation dies without clear heirs.

5 minutes ago, Vaith said:

Well, perhaps "close kin" is the better term then -- perhaps kin you cannot marry, or those who are part of your house. But "close-kinslayer" is a clumsier term in general than mere "kinslayer."

Sure, that's why I said I understand why the term was used ... it sounds cooler.

5 minutes ago, Vaith said:

Yes, Robert's Targaryen relation was not imagined, but other things that were not originally imagined have been grandfathered in in later instalments. The Blackfyres were not part of the story until ASOS, yet have been mentioned quite frequently in the main story after their creation, not to mention in supplementary materials. However the same "kinslayer" label hasn't been retroactively applied to Robert thus far.

This would be the reason why I'd say that Robert can be called a kinslayer but never was because they weren't as closely related back at the beginning of the series. Robert Baratheon is long dead in the more recent books, and is rarely a topic of conversation by the people in the Targaryen camp.

I'd not be surprised if Dany decided to refer to Robert as a kinslayer when (re-)considering her own kinship with Stannis, Shireen, and Edric Storm (or Tommen and Myrcella). She might arrive at a point where she has to decide whether to kill these people herself. At this point we don't even know whether Dany knows that she and Robert share a great-grandfather. We don't know whether her brother informed her about all their uncles and aunts and cousins.

[frenin]

People who kill close family are labeled as kinslayers, people who don't are not labeled as kinslayer. All the kinslayers in the story kill either their siblings or their nephews and nieces. There is a reason why no one in the story calls Robert that, just as there is a reason why as @EccentricHorse11 has said, people don't consider cousin marriage incest.

[Wolf's Bane]

3 hours ago, Angel Eyes said:

So of the various things Robert's detractors bring up, ie calling him the Usurper, why does nobody bring up the fact that he killed one of his kinsmen in Rhaegar?

Because he carried a big ass warhammer that nobody wanted to come in contact with.

[Adam Yozza]

36 minutes ago, Wolf's Bane said:

Because he carried a big ass warhammer that nobody wanted to come in contact with.

Missing the point a bit there. The question is why do those who name Robert 'Usurper' (such as Jorah, Viserys, Dany etc) not also name him 'Kinslayer'. To me the answer would be that second cousins; especially those related maternally & from a different house; would generally not be considered close enough for 'kinslayer' to apply. No one called Aegon II a kinslayer for killing Rhaenys as I recall. Aemond, Maegor and Maekar (and I think Bloodraven) are all named as kinslayer though because they killed siblings or nephews (even if, in Maekar's case, it was entirely accidental)

[Colonel Green]

3 hours ago, Lollygag said:

I agree with it being paper-thin to say the least but Robb doesn't deny it and Catelyn acknowledges it as valid and even prays for Robb's forgiveness claiming he had no choice. 

People in the world of ASOIAF take the claim of kinslaying very seriously.

The fact that Robb executes Karstark and nobody objects on this basis is strong evidence that it is not considering kinslaying.  Not even Robb's enemies call him a kinslayer.  And the degree of relation that Lord Rickard claims would, as others have noted, render the term almost meaningless.

We don't have any instances in the series where kinslaying is applies to second cousins, so the most probable reason why Robert is never called a kinslayer is because that's not considering kinslaying.