Why not label Robert a kinslayer?

[rotting sea cow]

22 hours ago, EccentricHorse11 said:

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

Tywin Lannister married his first cousin Joanna Lannister and nobody blinked.

Lysa Arryn intended that SweetRobin marries his first counsi Sansa Stark and didn't seem a problem either.

Probably there are more cases.

[Lord Varys]

19 hours ago, Adam Yozza said:

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)

Aegon II didn't slay Rhaenys, that were Aemond and Vhagar (who also seem to be responsible for crippling Sunfyre). And Aemond was called 'the Kinslayer' since he had murdered Lucerys Velaryon, his nephew.

In Bloodraven's case the kinslayer name seems to be more an insult that a fact. Daemon Blackfyre and his sons were slain by arrows shot by many people. There is no way that Bloodraven or anyone knows for sure who actually killed them. And it seems that it is only kinslaying if it do it yourself or directly command the execution of a family member/kinsman. Death in battle or per accident do murky things to a point ... which is why we can reasonably expect that only Maekar's enemies considered him or called him a kinslayer.

Rhaenyra apparently isn't considered a kinslayer because she never actually commanded the murders of her nephews Jaehaerys and Maelor nor the death of her half-sister Helaena.

[EccentricHorse11]

43 minutes ago, rotting sea cow said:

Tywin Lannister married his first cousin Joanna Lannister and nobody blinked.

Lysa Arryn intended that SweetRobin marries his first counsi Sansa Stark and didn't seem a problem either.

Probably there are more cases.

Yep. Thanks for elucidating my point

[Adam Yozza]

33 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Aegon II didn't slay Rhaenys, that were Aemond and Vhagar (who also seem to be responsible for crippling Sunfyre). And Aemond was called 'the Kinslayer' since he had murdered Lucerys Velaryon, his nephew.

I'd argue that he was equally as responsible for her death as Aemond and Criston, but you're right. Maybe the fact that he didn't strike the killing blow, nor mastermind the trap, is the reason he isn't labelled kinslayer, as opposed to the distance of relation.
 

35 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

In Bloodraven's case the kinslayer name seems to be more an insult that a fact. Daemon Blackfyre and his sons were slain by arrows shot by many people. There is no way that Bloodraven or anyone knows for sure who actually killed them. And it seems that it is only kinslaying if it do it yourself or directly command the execution of a family member/kinsman. Death in battle or per accident do murky things to a point ... which is why we can reasonably expect that only Maekar's enemies considered him or called him a kinslayer.

I think bloodraven can be considered a kinslayer quite safely. Not so much for Daemon (although no doubt his enemies bring this up seeing as he was the one to command the Raven's Teeth, who killed Daemon) because that was a pitched battle in a rebellion but more for Aenys Blackfyre, Bloodraven's nephew, who was killed on his command after being deceived into showing up. That's not heat-of-the-moment, goaded into it kinslaying like Aemond (which is bad enough, regardless) but more pre-meditated Ramsey-esque type.

As for Maekar...hard to say. Maybe only his enemies call him that but we don't know for sure and regardless, we know it to be true.

 

39 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Rhaenyra apparently isn't considered a kinslayer because she never actually commanded the murders of her nephews Jaehaerys and Maelor nor the death of her half-sister Helaena.

Well, yeah. She never harmed or ordered to be harmed a single member of her family in the whole war so far as I know, except maybe commanding Aemond to be hunted but off the top of my head I can't remember if that was a command she gave or something Daemon came up with himself that she just accepted.

[Lord Varys]

6 minutes ago, Adam Yozza said:

I'd argue that he was equally as responsible for her death as Aemond and Criston, but you're right. Maybe the fact that he didn't strike the killing blow, nor mastermind the trap, is the reason he isn't labelled kinslayer, as opposed to the distance of relation.

Well, Aegon II is, of course, a kinslayer because he killed Rhaenyra, but he seems to be killed far too quickly himself for that name to stick.

6 minutes ago, Adam Yozza said:

I think bloodraven can be considered a kinslayer quite safely. Not so much for Daemon (although no doubt his enemies bring this up seeing as he was the one to command the Raven's Teeth, who killed Daemon) because that was a pitched battle in a rebellion but more for Aenys Blackfyre, Bloodraven's nephew, who was killed on his command after being deceived into showing up. That's not heat-of-the-moment, goaded into it kinslaying like Aemond (which is bad enough, regardless) but more pre-meditated Ramsey-esque type.

Yeah, for Aenys Blackfyre definitely. I was referring to the Blackfyre sympathizers branding him a kinslayer in TMK, specifically that septon at Stoney Sept who is beheaded. That seems to be more of a battle cry used by his enemies to throw dirt at him than a clear fact.

6 minutes ago, Adam Yozza said:

As for Maekar...hard to say. Maybe only his enemies call him that but we don't know for sure and regardless, we know it to be true.

Yes, it is true in the sense that he accidentally killed him. But not in the sense that he wanted that to happen. That is an important distinction. Those people who knew Maekar and knew that he didn't want his brother to die, would not use the term to describe him because it is a way to vilify a person.

6 minutes ago, Adam Yozza said:

Well, yeah. She never harmed or ordered to be harmed a single member of her family in the whole war so far as I know, except maybe commanding Aemond to be hunted but off the top of my head I can't remember if that was a command she gave or something Daemon came up with himself that she just accepted.

She wanted her half-brothers to be found and tried and executed and did not intend to allow them to go to the wall ... if she had gotten around to execute them one could call her a kinslayer. But she never signed off or authorized the murder of Jaehaerys nor has she anything to do with the way the good folk of Bitterbridge dealt with Maelor.

[Thomaerys Velaryon]

@Lollygag @Bernie Mac @The hairy bear @Colonel Green @Vaith

GRRM already weigh in the Karstark kinslaying issue:

Quote

The other factor, which you haven't raised, is degree of kinship. Killing a parent is probably worse than killing a sibling, but either one is a lot worse than killing a distant cousin. Lord Karstark was stretching that aspect of it when he tried to accuse Robb of kinslaying... but of course he was hoping to save his head.

-SSM from May 22, 2001

 

[kissdbyfire]

On 5/2/2020 at 11:13 AM, frenin said:

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

I agree, but Rickard Karstark clearly doesn’t. 

[Lord Varys]

The whole Karstark issue shows that this is simply a very open term. There are no clear rules when to use it, especially since it is effectively an insult or a battle cry to discredit an opponent.

Karstark would not try to use the term if it was completely impossible to use it ... after all, the last intermarriage between Stark and Karstark didn't exactly go back to the days of the founding of the Karstarks. And for all we know Rickard and Robb could be pretty close cousins through the female line - a sister of Arya Flint or Marna Locke could have been the mother or grandmother of Lord Rickard.

[Colonel Green]

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The whole Karstark issue shows that this is simply a very open term. There are no clear rules when to use it, especially since it is effectively an insult or a battle cry to discredit an opponent.

Karstark would not try to use the term if it was completely impossible to use it ... after all, the last intermarriage between Stark and Karstark didn't exactly go back to the days of the founding of the Karstarks. And for all we know Rickard and Robb could be pretty close cousins through the female line - a sister of Arya Flint or Marna Locke could have been the mother or grandmother of Lord Rickard.

But Karstark doesn't cite any nearer relation (though he could have, going by the TWOIAF family tree, since Robb's great-great-great-great-grandmother was a Karstark -- but then, that didn't exist at the time GRRM wrote ASOS), he just invokes the general idea of kinship since they're a Stark offshoot.

While there's no precise legal definition, I don't think you can conversely say it's a very open term.  Clearly there is a widespread general understanding, since people in Westeros seem to take the accusation of kinslaying very seriously, and nobody either in Robb's camp or even in his enemies' camp ever use it against him.  It's just Lord Rickard venting his spleen.

[Lord Varys]

On 5/4/2020 at 5:42 AM, Colonel Green said:

But Karstark doesn't cite any nearer relation (though he could have, going by the TWOIAF family tree, since Robb's great-great-great-great-grandmother was a Karstark -- but then, that didn't exist at the time GRRM wrote ASOS), he just invokes the general idea of kinship since they're a Stark offshoot.

While there's no precise legal definition, I don't think you can conversely say it's a very open term.  Clearly there is a widespread general understanding, since people in Westeros seem to take the accusation of kinslaying very seriously, and nobody either in Robb's camp or even in his enemies' camp ever use it against him.  It's just Lord Rickard venting his spleen.

Oh, I don't believe Rickard and Robb were very closely related. But they (or rather: Rickard) would know how exactly they were related and they are definitely more closely related than just by way of that Stark son who founded the Karhold Starks - meaning Rickard's claim that Robb would be a kinslayer has to be based on more than just the founding story of House Karstark. Even if that wasn't evident by the time of the writing - implicit it was evident even back then, since all Starks ancestors need mothers, and those mothers would come to no small degree from other Northern houses ... just as all those Stark daughters would need husbands.

Overall, I'd say that 'kinslayer' is indeed a term that is used in political way - to attack your enemies. Especially when we talk execution and not murder. Tyrion is definitely a kinslayer for Tywin (and Joff, if he had done that) but a man/woman executing a traitorous close relation (Aerys I beheading uncle Aegor, say) wouldn't be a kinslayer in the same degree since a king has to dispense justice, etc.

There would also be those people - and it might be that the Aerys I we get in the books was one such - who preferred it to not execute close kin even if they are guilty of a crime that warrants execution. Such people would then criticize and condemn even the just execution of close relatives. But others would not use the term in such cases even if it was technically accurate.

There is also the fact that your friends won't call you kinslayer even if you are while your enemies will. If Robb had for some reason executed the Blackfish or Edmure his followers would likely not condemn him as kinslayer for that, while the friends of the Blackfish or Edmure would. And so on.

Depending how much you loath a person you might also be willing to brand a person with the kinslayer moniker who might not deserve it in the eyes of others - just to throw some more dirt at them. Asha thinks foster siblings do count, Theon doesn't like that idea all that much. Or think about the septon from TMK condemning Bloodraven - the case that the man is responsible for the death of Daemon Blackfyre and his twins is not that bad (although the claim Bloodraven's own arrows did the trick is impossible to confirm or prove). But the claim that he sent shadows to murder the children of Valarr Targaryen in the womb of his wife is completely without basis. Others might draw the line at third cousins, other at fourth, others still might highlight that there has to be a close bond - people growing up together - and would then even refer to fifth cousins as close enough kin for the term if they had grown up together at the same castle (especially if they had the same family name).

That is all impossible to say.

[BridgeofFire]

Probably because he is the king. Also he could have justified himself by saying that he did it to save the honor of a highborn lady.

[Angel Eyes]

57 minutes ago, BridgeofFire said:

Probably because he is the king. Also he could have justified himself by saying that he did it to save the honor of a highborn lady.

But nobody who opposes him uses it as an argument against him, even Viserys and Daenerys.

[BridgeofFire]

 

On 5/6/2020 at 11:38 AM, Angel Eyes said:

But nobody who opposes him uses it as an argument against him, even Viserys and Daenerys.

Maybe because they have never gotten the chance. Also they aren’t very closely related and Robert wasn’t viewed as a member of the royal family.

[Back in Black-Snow]

I have largely skimmed through this thread, because most of the posts are very similar (what I did read).

But I want to take another route to make an answer. I think that for the most part, and even regarding other "mysteries" or seeming contradictions, that George started out by telling a story he thought would take 3 books. But in the process, he has expanded it enormously. And that he did not plot out (and possibly never even thought of) all the little details that we spend so much of our time considering and debating. For example, geography (travel times/distances), how to scientifically explain "this" or "that".

I guess what I am saying is, no matter how realistic a story, whether a book or movie, there are always going to be inconsistencies. No matter how detail oriented the author (producer) intends to be, they cannot possibly consider every detail (hindsight is a bitch, right?). That is impossible. And so you have instances where the sex of a horse changes from book to book, or the diatance from one place to another changes, or you have things that haven't been painstakingly thought out in every detail, such as "What is kinslaying?"

[Back in Black-Snow]

And after saying all that, I think there is an ambiguous line when it comes to "What is kinslaying?" and I think it is clear from the text that it somewhat differs from character to character, largely (in my opinion) because George never really defined that for himself. Kind of like whether or not Theon has a penis.

[Lord Varys]

On 5/15/2020 at 8:42 PM, Travis said:

And after saying all that, I think there is an ambiguous line when it comes to "What is kinslaying?" and I think it is clear from the text that it somewhat differs from character to character, largely (in my opinion) because George never really defined that for himself. Kind of like whether or not Theon has a penis.

As I said, it is an insult, a way to throw dirt at a person. If you love a close relation who murdered a close relative you both hated - or if a close relative killed another close relative in an accident - then you are less likely to call him or her 'kinslayer' than if you hate the person and want to see them dead.

Most if not all people who are called 'kinslayer' in the books are not referred to in this manner by their loved ones.