Rickard's Ambitions: A Survey

[frenin]

6 hours ago, SFDanny said:

Yes, absolutely. Lord Rickard was a critical part of a plot to do away with Targaryen rule. Not to simply remove Aerys, but to do away with Targaryen rule. The aim, I believe, was not to replace the Targaryens with another king to sit on the Iron Throne, but to create a new political reality, modeled in part on the old pre-Targaryen order of independent kingdoms based on the alliance of the High Lords of the realm. The leaders of The North, The Vale, The Stormlands, The Riverlands, and the Westerlands united to bring about this new version of political reality through their system of marriage alliances and fosterings. In so doing they could have renounced their oaths of fealty to the Iron Throne and had the political and military power to make it happen. 

Why would any of them try to return to the independent kingdoms?? 

Steffon was Aerys's cousin and best friend and that remained,  the Riverlords had several ties with the crown and the Arryn were traditionally pro Targ, Jaeharys 2 also is said to have reconciled his great lords with the Targ rule after Egg's reign. Even the Starks should've grown closer to them after Aegon 5 sent them food when the North was starving. Independence goes regardless against both the interests of the Stormlands and the Riverlands.

The ties between them may hae given them political power but in anyway it gave them militarily power, why would the bannermen of the great lords agree with such a plan, even after the Targs clearly crossed the line they still counted with a large support and those great lords encountered many difficulties to deal with the loyalists in their respective kingdoms. How many of their own bannermen would follow to what it was open treason?? If they really wanted to keep destroy the Targ, their lack of concern about securing the loyalty and unity of their own bannermen is simply appalling, especially having in mind that they all had children to bethroth. Stannis and Renly ignored, Lysa after her bethrothal is broken also ignored, Benjen and Ned nothing and nothing is said about Elbert, in fact had Robert not become infatuated with Lyanna he would not have been added in the plot apparently.

Hoster tried to marry his heir to Arianne after he had tied with two great houses, no one thought he was trying to get rid of the Baratheons. Tywin tried to marry Tyrion to every major non western House, ditto. 

 

 

6 hours ago, SFDanny said:

In looking at this question, one should not just look at the marriage pacts of Robert/Lyanna and Brandon/Catelyn and the fostering of Ned and Robert in the Vale, but also the near betrothal of Jaime to Lysa and the attempts to marry into powerful families in the Reach like the aborted Blackfish marriage to House Redwyne, and possibly the Stannis marriage into House Florent (we don't know when the negotiations for this started.) The pattern of behavior on the part of the High Lords during Aerys's reign is unprecedented in its scope, and clearly represents a threat to the Targaryen crown.

Steffon and Aerys were again close, Robert decided to marry Lyanna without any dream of indepence crossing his mind,  Cersei was being saved for a Targ. The Blackfish bethrothal can perfectly be made for the Tullys to have some strenght against their own vassals.

The Targs intermarry the major houses several times, the Lannisters and Baratheons had also intermarried with the Rowans etc. I don't think that Hoster was forbidding Walder his family to all Westeros even when the man was clearly ambitious.

Nor do i see the threat to the Targ crown, I'm certainly surprised that for a large part of the fandom, the only solution they see to an alledged threat is brutal tyranny, as if there were no other peaceful and more realistic options to break the alledged plotters without giving them a reason to rise against him.

 

 

[Adam Yozza]

3 hours ago, SFDanny said:

Because the plan changes as the rebellion unfolds. The marriages of Brandon to Catelyn and Robert to Lyanna never take place. As I point out, Tywin's participation in the plot ends with Jaime joining the Kingsguard. He only comes back in when he is clear who the winner will be. Tywin sits most of the war out refusing to reply to either side's entreaties or commands for support.We know from Martin that the rebels only choose Robert as a new king around the time of the Trident. The careful pre-rebellion plots of Lord Rickard's southron ambitions, so carefully built over many years are destroyed. Once the rebels have won at the Trident those old attempts to build a web of alliances based on mutual ambitions of the High Lords is replaced by the realities of a year plus long hard fought rebellion. Those realities no longer allow for equal treatment of the Martells, the Tyrells, or any of the other lords of the realm who sided with Aerys.

There are more than one plot at work here. There are multiple players in this game all with their own interests. Yes, Rhaegar had his plans to remove Aerys, but he wants to continue Targaryen rule with himself on the throne. Rickard and his alliance does not. It looks to me like Brandon makes this very clear at Harrenhal.

First of all, how in hell does Brandon make anything clear at Harrenhal. Because he reacts angrily to Rhaegar dragging his little sister into a scandal?

You said in your post that:

6 hours ago, SFDanny said:

What the reader need ask themselves, however, is not just that such a plot existed, but toward what political future does it point towards. In that regard, I would suggest that only a world in which kingship is restored, or, in the case of Tullys created for the first time, answers the widely differing ambitions of individuals such as Lords Rickard, Robert, Tywin, Hoster, and Jon Arryn. It makes no sense that these men are willing to risk all only to submit to another new dynasty. Tywin does not throw his lot in with Rickard and Robert to put one of them in power over him. He will join a plot in which makes him the new restored King of the Westerlands.

You yourself claimed that Rickard, Robert, Jon, Hoster and Tywin all wanted to regain independence and not bow down to one of the other four. Well, four of them are alive at the end of the rebellion and three of them bow to the fourth. Not only that, but the one who they bow to is in charge of arguably the weakest kingdom. If Tywin Lannister and Hoster Tully and Jon Arryn had been plotting for independence when the Targaryen's were in power there is no logical reason for them not to claim their Kingship when the only House preventing it are dead.

The fact that none of them do means that even if there was a conspiracy against the Targ's (doubtful in and of itself) independence was never the endgame for them.

You're entitled to your opinion and you can keept it. But I'm equally allowed to be honest and say that this one is nonsensical at best.

[Adam Yozza]

6 hours ago, SFDanny said:

At Harrenhal he shows us how a Targaryen king, without the power of dragons, deals with such plots. He steals Jaime from Tywin and uses him as a de facto hostage against Tywin's involvement in the conspiracy, and ends the marriage pact between House Lannister and Tully. He has already tied House Martell to Targaryen interests with the marriage of Rhaegar to Elia. What he does next to stop the growing alliance of his High Lords against him is a interesting question in the way of an alternate timeline, but what we do know is what he did when Brandon presented him with the opportunity to strike against his enemies. He dealt with them ruthlessly and killed not only Brandon and Rickard, but also summoned all the fathers of Brandon's party to present themselves to his "justice." If Jon Arryn had come to King's Landing, and had not protected Robert and Ned, then Rickard's "southron ambitions" would have come to naught.

btw. Look how well this went. "Oh I'll just arbitrarily murder several nobles and their heirs and then demand two entirely uninvolved nobles be murdered by their foster father. I'm sure not a single person in the Kingdom will have an issue with that".

That hostage he stole? Ended up killing him. That marriage pact he broke up? Didn't matter, because Tywin didn't help Aerys and threw in with the winners hostage or no.

The Martell's? Had to be threatened into sending an army to help. If Elia and her kids hadn't been in KL they wouldn't have lifted a finger.

Oh how effective Aerys was at dismantling brewing rebellions.

[Lady Topspin]

On 6/4/2020 at 11:27 AM, Willam Stark said:

Best way to start a war while you can avoid it peacefully. There is not any shred of evidence that Rickard was plotting against his king, all we can conclude is that lord Stark wants to gain political influence in the South. The propositions I've made before might counter his ambitions without spilling blood, I should also add a Jaime/Lysa marriage and Hoster wouldn't try anything stupid. 

Aerys is the king.  All he need do is order Rickard to pick another husband for his daughter.  Better yet, Aerys himself should have chosen who Lyanna is to marry.  This is a good way to test the loyalty of Rickard Stark. 

[Lady Topspin]

On 6/4/2020 at 6:30 AM, frenin said:

The way to prevent rebellions is actually acting like a paranoid  tyrant, because people love that. And kill them ofc, because killing them didn't get him overthrown...

I blame Rickard and Robert.  The way to keep the peace is to make sure their king was happy with them.  Setting up family alliances which could threaten their king is not what a loyal vassal would do. 

[kissdbyfire]

55 minutes ago, Lady Topspin said:

The way to keep the peace is to make sure their king was happy with them

Well, apparently nothing made Aerys happier [and hornier] than burning people alive, so maybe he should have burned his whole court and his subjects. /s

[frenin]

2 hours ago, Lady Topspin said:

Aerys is the king.  All he need do is order Rickard to pick another husband for his daughter.  Better yet, Aerys himself should have chosen who Lyanna is to marry.  This is a good way to test the loyalty of Rickard Stark. 

Tyranny. The Kings in Asoiaf are overpowered but not even then, that's one of their powers.

 

1 hour ago, kissdbyfire said:

Well, apparently nothing made Aerys happier [and hornier] than burning people alive, so maybe he should have burned his whole court and his subjects. /s

 

[Willam Stark]

1 hour ago, Lady Topspin said:

Aerys is the king.

His status doesn't give him the right to do whatever he wants, Westeros is a feudal society not a totalitarian state, the king has limited political power.  

2 hours ago, Lady Topspin said:

All he need do is order Rickard to pick another husband for his daughter.  Better yet, Aerys himself should have chosen who Lyanna is to marry.

He doesn't have the right to do this, again he can only do it with his kids and grandkids.

You're suggesting tyrant moves here, and tyranny doesn't bring peace, quite the opposite actually.

2 hours ago, Lady Topspin said:

The way to keep the peace is to make sure their king was happy with them.

Ok you would be a wonderful mad king, congratulations.

 

[Chaircat Meow]

On 6/8/2020 at 5:32 PM, Adam Yozza said:

There's one major flaw with this theory of yours; if the High Lords were plotting to overthrow the Targaryen dynasty and become independent again, why then didn't they do it after the rebellion when they had completed step one?

This theory doesn't work. If there was any conspiracy in the realm to remove Aerys from power, then it was Rhaegar's plot. Not Rickard's.

The other solution to this, aside from the one proposed by SFDanny, is to suppose, as I tend to, that southron ambitions was all about putting Robert on the throne with Lyanna as his Queen and removing the Targaryen magic users. If this was the case we have a very good explanation of why the post-war settlement looked as it did: king Robert was the plan all along but he had to marry someone else because of what happened to Lyanna. 

[Back door hodor]

My take on it is that, yes, he was definitely playing the game of thrones, in a way that few Starks before him had, I do not,  however think his end goal was to supplant house Targaryen, or even Aerys himself, in any way. 

I think he was trying to gain more influence for the Starks and the North within the existing royal power structure....maybe a place on the small council and a royal marriage alliance in a generation or two.

[Adam Yozza]

3 hours ago, Chaircat Meow said:

The other solution to this, aside from the one proposed by SFDanny, is to suppose, as I tend to, that southron ambitions was all about putting Robert on the throne with Lyanna as his Queen and removing the Targaryen magic users. If this was the case we have a very good explanation of why the post-war settlement looked as it did: king Robert was the plan all along but he had to marry someone else because of what happened to Lyanna. 

While I don't personally think the sourthern ambitions was about deposing Aerys/Targaryen dynasty (and more about increasing political pull in general, as most Great Lords do anyway), this is much easier to accept and more logically concurrent than the idea that they all had hard-ons for independence only to u-turn when they had the chance to actually do it.

[SFDanny]

On 6/8/2020 at 2:20 PM, frenin said:

Why would any of them try to return to the independent kingdoms??

You're kidding, right? The Starks, Arryns, Lannisters, and even the Baratheons are descendants of kings. Kings who lost their ancient crowns to Aegon, Visenya, and Rhaenys because of the power of their dragons. At the time of Rickard's southron ambitions plots do you really think they have forgotten this history? Do you think they are unaware the dragons are seemingly all dead and gone from the world? The question is not that the High Lords have ample incentive to do away with Targaryen rule, but rather how the Targaryens hang onto their overlordship of Westeros for as long as they did?

The answer to that last question is that there was no way to stand alone against the Targaryens and win. So, Lord Rickard, with some help from other anti-Targ elements begins to build an alliance that could possibly stand against a dragonless Targaryen monarchy. Which is just what we see unfolding in the web of proposed marriage pacts and fosterings between the High Lords. To Lord Rickard's credit, I think his ambition is to accomplish this as peacefully as possible. To renounce the oaths of fealty to the Targaryens that had been forced upon the ancient kingdoms and have the power to stop the Targaryens from reimposing them. I even think Rickard might have been ok with the Targaryens as princes of the little island of Dragonstone. Just not ruling over him and the people of the North.

On 6/8/2020 at 2:20 PM, frenin said:

Steffon was Aerys's cousin and best friend and that remained

Did it? I'm not so sure that is the case, especially in the post Duskendale years. But even before that Steffon sends his heir to foster in the Vale. Why not have Robert serve at court? I've got to believe Steffon's relationship with Aerys is a bit more complicated than you would have us believe. After all, we know Steffon's grandfather foreswore his fealty to House Targaryen over a broken marriage pact.  But even if we accept your rosy view of the Steffon/Aerys friendship, he is not the only one who is training his son in politics or with a political agenda.

I'd suggest rereading the prologue of A Clash of Kings and look for Maester Cressen's politics as he expresses them about Melisandre. Everything he thinks and does could just as easily be applied to the Targaryens. He is the embodiment of what Marwyn warns Sam about as he leaves the Citadel in search of Daenerys. Down to the attempt to poison the Red Woman. I, for one, would love to know more about any connections or communications between Cressen, Walys, Kim, and the other unnamed maesters of the Great Houses during this time.

On 6/8/2020 at 2:20 PM, frenin said:

[...]  the Riverlords had several ties with the crown and the Arryn were traditionally pro Targ, Jaeharys 2 also is said to have reconciled his great lords with the Targ rule after Egg's reign. Even the Starks should've grown closer to them after Aegon 5 sent them food when the North was starving. Independence goes regardless against both the interests of the Stormlands and the Riverlands.

We will have to disagree on these estimations. The Tullys are one of the Great Houses (along with the Starks, the Lannisters, and the Tyrells) that have no intermarriage into House Targaryen. That would be a significant tie, but it doesn't exist. Serving a Targaryen King on some past small council maybe a tie, but it isn't really significant in Aerys's day.

The Arryns do have significant family ties historically, but they are formed in the era of dragons. Those kind of ties are more than just significant, they are critical. We see so in the time of the Dance. But in the post-dragon history of House Targaryen we don't see the continuation of marriage pacts with House Arryn. Only the Martells can boast of those marriages, and we can see why the Dornish remain committed to Targaryen rule even in the time of Robert's Rebellion. That commitment may have been more for Rhaegar, at some points, than for Aerys, but that makes sense because it is Elia Martell's child Aegon that is in line to Rhaegar's claim to the Iron Throne. It is precisely the kind of tie Tywin aspired to with his overtures for a Rhaegar/Cersei marriage, and for which he is so condescendingly rebuffed.

In the immediate run up to the rebellion - meaning the time of Lord Rickard's "southron ambitions" - it is only House Martell that has the kind of tie that would ensure they stay loyal to House Targaryen in a struggle for their continued overlordship of Westeros. That is the truly significant difference of House Martell's interests from all the other Great Houses, and how those interests are shaped  by their marriages into the Targaryen line that results in a child of the Martell family sitting on the Iron Throne or in line to do so.

Now, that doesn't mean that it is by any means easy to put together the alliance Rickard aims to create. Building a power bloc that doesn't isolate a High Lord from not only the Throne, but also the lord's own bannermen is indeed not easy. Rickard does so slowly and at great risk of retribution. What he has going for him is the closely held and guarded power of a High Lord to decide the marriage pacts of his own House, without interference from anyone. The flip side of this is the risk for Aerys of pissing off ALL of his High Lords if he just blatantly overrules and interferes in a marriage pact. As we see, both Aerys and Rhaegar, try a more subtle approach than outright royal refusal to allow Lord Rickard's marriages to go forward.

Of course, all subtly is cast aside when Brandon and his company present Aerys with the opportunity to eliminate his opposition.

On 6/8/2020 at 2:20 PM, frenin said:

The ties between them may hae given them political power but in anyway it gave them militarily power, why would the bannermen of the great lords agree with such a plan, even after the Targs clearly crossed the line they still counted with a large support and those great lords encountered many difficulties to deal with the loyalists in their respective kingdoms. How many of their own bannermen would follow to what it was open treason?? If they really wanted to keep destroy the Targ, their lack of concern about securing the loyalty and unity of their own bannermen is simply appalling, especially having in mind that they all had children to bethroth.

To the bolded question, let me say it is the critical part of Lord Rickard's plans. if the High Lords move together, to what degree can they count on their own bannermen to honor their oaths of fealty to the High Lords rather than to Aerys? What we see is a reaction that differs in each case. The North has almost universal support of the Starks. In the Vale, the Stormlands, and the Riverlands we see significant numbers of bannerman supporting the Targaryens. It is very interesting that the strong streak of Northern separatism is both shown in the unified response to the rebellion and in the response of Robb's bannermen during the War of the Five Kings. Read the part of Catelyn's account of Robb becoming not just a rebel against his father's and sisters's treatment, but also for Northern independence and we see the simmering resentment of rule from the King's Landing.

Quote

"MY LORDS!" he shouted, his voice booming off the rafters. "Here is what I say to these two kings!" He spat. "Renly Baratheon is nothing to me, nor Stannis neither. Why should they rule over me and mine, from some flowery seat in Highgarden or Dorne? What do they know of the Wall or the wolfswood or the barrows of the First Men? Even their gods are wrong. The Others take the Lannisters too, I've had a bellyful of them." He reached back over his shoulder and drew his immense two-handed greatsword. "Why shouldn't we rule ourselves again? It was the dragons we married, and the dragons are all dead!" He pointed at Robb with the blade. "There sits the only king I mean to bow my knee to, m'lords," he thundered. "The King in the North!" (AGoT 665) bold emphasis added

Not only is the Greatjon shouting his view of other's claims to rule the North, but the author is giving us a huge clue of the views of Northmen about their differences with their southron neighbors. It is the restoration of the King in the North that moves them, not the game of thrones for a iron seat in King's Landing. Do we really think it was different when Rickard was the High Lord in Winterfell? I don't think so, and I think the unity of the response to Rickard's, Ned's, and Robb's call supports that.

On 6/8/2020 at 2:20 PM, frenin said:

Stannis and Renly ignored, Lysa after her bethrothal is broken also ignored, Benjen and Ned nothing and nothing is said about Elbert, in fact had Robert not become infatuated with Lyanna he would not have been added in the plot apparently.

Renly is too young to have been betrothed. As I said earlier, we don't know when the marriage pact between House Baratheon and House Florent started to be negotiated. Was it before or after the rebellion? What we do know is the marriage to a house outside the Stormlands is unusual. It makes sense if it is part of an effort to build support for something from powerful houses in the Reach. That is especially true if we look at this marriage in concert with Hoster's attempt to to marry the Blackfish to a daughter of House Redwyne.

That we know nothing about any plans to marry Lysa after Aerys destroys the marriage to Jaime means nothing. This is a relative short period of time between these events at Harrenhal and the start of the rebellion. Once the rebellion starts we know that her marriage is a critical part of the building of the rebel alliance.

Benjen is in his early teens and unlikely to have been part of marriage considerations. Ned and Elbert are of marrying age but that we don't know the plans for their respective betrothals does not mean there were none. These two are the top two candidates for a marriage to Cersei before the rebellion. Only speculation, but it would fit the pattern we see pre-rebellion.

Robert has been fostered in the Vale and he is counseled by Maester Cressen. He is schooled to be part of Rickard's plans. Of interest here is we know Robert doesn't visit the North until he does so with Cersei, so when and where does he meet and fall in love with Lyanna? Does Rickard send his daughter to visit the Vale? Or does this infatuation of Robert's only from stories Ned tells his friends?

On 6/8/2020 at 2:20 PM, frenin said:

Hoster tried to marry his heir to Arianne after he had tied with two great houses, no one thought he was trying to get rid of the Baratheons. Tywin tried to marry Tyrion to every major non western House, ditto.

The question isn't that Hoster was trying to get rid of the Baratheons, but rather was he considering trying to use his son's marriage to try and help secure Robert's throne post rebellion.

We will have to disagree about Tyrion. I don't think Tywin was ever really seriously trying to find a suitable marriage for Tyrion. Perhaps if some great deal happened, but my view is that the last thing Tywin wants is for have children that could inherit Casterly Rock. The loathing Tywin has for Tyrion is clearly shown in our story.

On 6/8/2020 at 2:20 PM, frenin said:

Steffon and Aerys were again close, Robert decided to marry Lyanna without any dream of indepence crossing his mind,  Cersei was being saved for a Targ. The Blackfish bethrothal can perfectly be made for the Tullys to have some strenght against their own vassals.

The Targs intermarry the major houses several times, the Lannisters and Baratheons had also intermarried with the Rowans etc. I don't think that Hoster was forbidding Walder his family to all Westeros even when the man was clearly ambitious.

Nor do i see the threat to the Targ crown, I'm certainly surprised that for a large part of the fandom, the only solution they see to an alledged threat is brutal tyranny, as if there were no other peaceful and more realistic options to break the alledged plotters without giving them a reason to rise against him.

Any Targaryen who didn't see the marriages of his High Lords to each other as a threat to their oaths of fealty to the crown would be absurdly incompetent in the politics of the game of thrones. The Targaryens did try peaceful options to stop these marriage including taking Jaime into the Kingsguard and Rhaegar's actions with Lyanna at Harrenhal announcing his de facto opposition to Robert's upcoming marriage to Lyanna. The response was to go ahead with the marriages. Was there other peaceful options to handle Brandon and his companion's actions in the Red Keep? Absolutely, but the Mad King liked fire and blood as his tools and he almost eliminated his rivals with his actions. Cruel as those actions were. Perhaps, he took his lessons from Tywin.

[SFDanny]

3 hours ago, Chaircat Meow said:

The other solution to this, aside from the one proposed by SFDanny, is to suppose, as I tend to, that southron ambitions was all about putting Robert on the throne with Lyanna as his Queen and removing the Targaryen magic users. If this was the case we have a very good explanation of why the post-war settlement looked as it did: king Robert was the plan all along but had to marry someone else because of what happened to Lyanna. 

I have to respectfully disagree. We know from Martin's comments that the choice to put Robert on the throne doesn't happen until around the time of the Trident. Rickard is long dead, and his plans dead with him. Not only did Martin explicitly say so here, but in story we are also told that the decision was made between Robert, Jon Arryn, and Ned. If Ned is making the decision it means Rickard and Brandon are already dead when the choice is made. Both sources confirm each other.

[Chaircat Meow]

2 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

I have to respectfully disagree. We know from Martin's comments that the choice to put Robert on the throne doesn't happen until around the time of the Trident. Rickard is long dead, and his plans dead with him. Not only did Martin explicitly say so here, but in story we are also told that the decision was made between Robert, Jon Arryn, and Ned. If Ned is making the decision it means Rickard and Brandon are already dead when the choice is made. Both sources confirm each other.

The question wasn't actually when was Robert chosen but when did he proclaim his intention. Robert making public his aspiration to take the kingship was the only thing Martin dated to around the time of the Trident. 

"Robert proclaimed his intention to take the throne ... around the time of the Trident. Would not elaborate any further. Mentioned Robert's claim being stronger than Eddard Stark's and Jon Arryn's, the leaders of the two other great houses that spearheaded the revolution, due to blood ties to the Targaryen's."

This doesn't mean it wasn't the plan before that.

Rickard's death and Lyanna's abduction probably made it uncertain if the original plan would go ahead. For example, once the war did start it wouldn't be a given the Starks would back Robert for the kingship because the marriage to Lyanna would be in doubt given the abduction. We also don't know whether the new Stark leader, Ned, even knew about the plan. 

I would also add though that quite a few characters imply Robert was thought of as an alternative king to Aerys from the start of the rebellion. It is a while since I read the books but I think some lord of the fingers noted Robert was 'fighting like a king should fight' at Gulltown. Then there is Jon Connington's recollection of the Battle of the Bells. He thinks if only he had killed Robert the rebellion would have been over. Now, it is true, this could just be Jon trying to take all the blame on himself but it still makes more sense if he felt he was fighting a rival for the Iron Throne than separatists. This suggests that there was some vague awareness that the end goal of the rebels was a new king, not a breakup of the realm.  

 

[frenin]

13 hours ago, SFDanny said:

You're kidding, right? The Starks, Arryns, Lannisters, and even the Baratheons are descendants of kings. Kings who lost their ancient crowns to Aegon, Visenya, and Rhaenys because of the power of their dragons. At the time of Rickard's southron ambitions plots do you really think they have forgotten this history? Do you think they are unaware the dragons are seemingly all dead and gone from the world? The question is not that the High Lords have ample incentive to do away with Targaryen rule, but rather how the Targaryens hang onto their overlordship of Westeros for as long as they did?

No, I'm not.

Almost every major lord in Westeros (greenland) is descendant of Kings but we don't see them longing for crowns.

A crown means less money, more wars and more unstability. Yes, I think that they had forgotten about their history, especially the Baratheons. Not without mention that most of those kingdoms were neighbours which means war.

Besides, once the Realm is united people want to rule it all, they don't want fractions of it. That's why people are so crazy to get Sansa. 

The Targs lasted as long as they did because by the time the dragons died people were used and had come to accept their rule.

 

 

13 hours ago, SFDanny said:

The answer to that last question is that there was no way to stand alone against the Targaryens and win. So, Lord Rickard, with some help from other anti-Targ elements begins to build an alliance that could possibly stand against a dragonless Targaryen monarchy. Which is just what we see unfolding in the web of proposed marriage pacts and fosterings between the High Lords. To Lord Rickard's credit, I think his ambition is to accomplish this as peacefully as possible. To renounce the oaths of fealty to the Targaryens that had been forced upon the ancient kingdoms and have the power to stop the Targaryens from reimposing them. I even think Rickard might have been ok with the Targaryens as princes of the little island of Dragonstone. Just not ruling over him and the people of the North.

There is no way to stand against the Targs and win regardless. His web simply was not good enough.

 

 

 

13 hours ago, SFDanny said:

Did it? I'm not so sure that is the case, especially in the post Duskendale years. But even before that Steffon sends his heir to foster in the Vale. Why not have Robert serve at court? I've got to believe Steffon's relationship with Aerys is a bit more complicated than you would have us believe. After all, we know Steffon's grandfather foreswore his fealty to House Targaryen over a broken marriage pact.  But even if we accept your rosy view of the Steffon/Aerys friendship, he is not the only one who is training his son in politics or with a political agenda

Why didn't Ned send Robb to court if he and Robert were in such good terms?? Why didn't Jon Arryn tell Stannis to send Robin to Winterfell if he considered Ned a son.

Egg's and Lyonel's beef is Egg's and Lyonel's beef. Steffon was born 7 years after Lyonel and Aegon made their peace and Steffon's father was Aerys's father's Hand of the King. 

Quote

Aerys and Tywin had known each other since childhood. As a boy, Tywin Lannister had served as a royal page at King’s Landing. He and Prince Aerys, together with a younger page, the prince’s cousin Steffon Baratheon of Storm’s End, had become inseparable. During the War of the Ninepenny Kings, the three friends had fought together, Tywin as a new-made knight, Steffon and Prince Aerys as squires. 

 

The fact that he wants his kid to be fostered with Jon Arryn is meaningless, it's an honor to him. 

There is quite literally nothing that suggests something similar as a bad relationship between them.

And Ned again has no recollection of those events, he doesn't remember being brainwashed, nor Robert either. Steffon is rasing his son to be loyal however.

Quote

We will have to disagree on these estimations. The Tullys are one of the Great Houses (along with the Starks, the Lannisters, and the Tyrells) that have no intermarriage into House Targaryen. That would be a significant tie, but it doesn't exist. Serving a Targaryen King on some past small council maybe a tie, but it isn't really significant in Aerys's day.

Ties are not only marriages, friendship and loyalty are also ties, blood ties can only get you that far.  And i was talking about the Riverlords, not House Tully, in Aerys's day many nobles of the Riverlands, Darry, Mooton... had personal ties with the Targs.

 

Quote

The Arryns do have significant family ties historically, but they are formed in the era of dragons. Those kind of ties are more than just significant, they are critical. We see so in the time of the Dance. But in the post-dragon history of House Targaryen we don't see the continuation of marriage pacts with House Arryn. Only the Martells can boast of those marriages, and we can see why the Dornish remain committed to Targaryen rule even in the time of Robert's Rebellion. That commitment may have been more for Rhaegar, at some points, than for Aerys, but that makes sense because it is Elia Martell's child Aegon that is in line to Rhaegar's claim to the Iron Throne. It is precisely the kind of tie Tywin aspired to with his overtures for a Rhaegar/Cersei marriage, and for which he is so condescendingly rebuffed.

... Didn't Rhaegel marry Alys Arryn??

Regardless, houses don't need marriages pacts to be loyal, during the War of the Ninepenny kings, all of Westeros fought against the Blackfyres. Robert, Ned and Jon Arryn weren't family either

Martell commitment is pure interest, the Targs are the only ones that can claim the Iron Throne and thus they are the only ones that can destroy the Lannisters and Baratheons, the Martells had to be friendly reminded about Elia's situation and her children  been on a safe place, they would not have raised a finger to help Rhaegar, Aerys or House Targaryen.

 

Quote

In the immediate run up to the rebellion - meaning the time of Lord Rickard's "southron ambitions" - it is only House Martell that has the kind of tie that would ensure they stay loyal to House Targaryen in a struggle for their continued overlordship of Westeros. That is the truly significant difference of House Martell's interests from all the other Great Houses, and how those interests are shaped  by their marriages into the Targaryen line that results in a child of the Martell family sitting on the Iron Throne or in line to do so.

If House Martell was the only house the Targs could count for protecting their ugly chair, there would not have been a war, clearly both sides could rely on more than loyalties entirely based on bloodties.

 

 

Quote

Now, that doesn't mean that it is by any means easy to put together the alliance Rickard aims to create. Building a power bloc that doesn't isolate a High Lord from not only the Throne, but also the lord's own bannermen is indeed not easy. Rickard does so slowly and at great risk of retribution. What he has going for him is the closely held and guarded power of a High Lord to decide the marriage pacts of his own House, without interference from anyone. The flip side of this is the risk for Aerys of pissing off ALL of his High Lords if he just blatantly overrules and interferes in a marriage pact. As we see, both Aerys and Rhaegar, try a more subtle approach than outright royal refusal to allow Lord Rickard's marriages to go forward.

So subtly that no one understands them...

 

 

Quote

To the bolded question, let me say it is the critical part of Lord Rickard's plans. if the High Lords move together, to what degree can they count on their own bannermen to honor their oaths of fealty to the High Lords rather than to Aerys? What we see is a reaction that differs in each case. The North has almost universal support of the Starks. In the Vale, the Stormlands, and the Riverlands we see significant numbers of bannerman supporting the Targaryens. It is very interesting that the strong streak of Northern separatism is both shown in the unified response to the rebellion and in the response of Robb's bannermen during the War of the Five Kings. Read the part of Catelyn's account of Robb becoming not just a rebel against his father's and sisters's treatment, but also for Northern independence and we see the simmering resentment of rule from the King's Landing.

I would not say it's so much as separatism than to overall them having more personal ties with the Starks and the North than the Targs, they were fine for 15 years and had Robb found the legal option he wanted when he was looking for killing Joffrey without seceding i really doubt he would've gone too far.

At the start of Robb's rebellion no one talks about seceding, Rickard's Karstarks reasons for seceding are entirely personal and so on, it's less of a common sentiment and more of all of them got carried by the moment. The only one that truly believes what he is saying is the Greatjon.

To the initial question, the could not count with the support of many or anyone, especially because none of the other kingdoms have ever shown a desire of independence.

 

Quote

Renly is too young to have been betrothed. As I said earlier, we don't know when the marriage pact between House Baratheon and House Florent started to be negotiated. Was it before or after the rebellion? What we do know is the marriage to a house outside the Stormlands is unusual. It makes sense if it is part of an effort to build support for something from powerful houses in the Reach. That is especially true if we look at this marriage in concert with Hoster's attempt to to marry the Blackfish to a daughter of House Redwyne.

No he isn't. Marriages and bethrothals can happen at any age, in both Westeros and the middle ages, the problem is the bedding not the marriages, marriages and bethrothals go as fast as the head of the houses wants them to go and they needed allies asap, there is no reason for Rely not to be behtrothed at the very least. One of the most famous real life cases is Petronilla, who was bethroted to  20 years Ramon, count of Barcelona,  when she was 1 year old.  Tommen also marries at 7 years old. Ermesande Hayford is also married when she's an infant (1 year old) to Tyrek and Daenara Velaryon married at six and Baela and Rhaena Targaryen were bethrothed when they were two, there is no excuse for Renly.

Marriage outside the Stormlands is not really unusual. Rogar Baratheon married Alyssa Velaryon, Boremund Baratheon was put forwad as a candidate to marry Daella Targ, Jocelyn Baratheon married Aemon Targaryen, Floris Baratheon married Thaddeus Rowan, Orryn Baratheon (while exiled) married the daughter of the Archon of Tyrosh, there were three Baratheon-Lannisters matches and Ormund Baratheon married Rhaelle Targaryen.

As it happened, the only Baratheons that we know for sure married to the Stormlands are Orys Baratheon, Steffon Baratheon, Cassandra Baratheon (out of punishment, he married landed knight) and Borros Baratheon.

Stannis is a second son and Selyse is the niece of a powerful lord, it makes sense the match. 

 

Quote

That we know nothing about any plans to marry Lysa after Aerys destroys the marriage to Jaime means nothing. This is a relative short period of time between these events at Harrenhal and the start of the rebellion. Once the rebellion starts we know that her marriage is a critical part of the building of the rebel alliance.

It means something, if the kings to be were looking for alliances, Lysa had become available for several pretenders, especially those of the Riverlands, so Hoster could make sure of having some of his most powerful bannermen beside him.

Unless the Robellion was something Hoster foresaw, it's just him being lucky.

 

Quote

Benjen is in his early teens and unlikely to have been part of marriage considerations. Ned and Elbert are of marrying age but that we don't know the plans for their respective betrothals does not mean there were none. These two are the top two candidates for a marriage to Cersei before the rebellion. Only speculation, but it would fit the pattern we see pre-rebellion.

Benjen needs to be in a marriage consideration, he is a Stark that can be married. Both Maegor and Aegon 3 and Jaeharys (in peace) and Joffrey (in war) married without any kind of problem during their early teens. Sansa was bethrothed in peace time at 11 and Cat was 12 when she was bethrothed to Brandon. And come on, Ned and Elbert are important pieces and Ned in particular is a central historical figure, if they were bethrothed we would've been told by now. In Elbert case, Petyr mentions the marriages and bethrothals of old Jon's inmediate heirs... bar Elbert...

Ned wasn't marrying Cersei, in anyway imaginable, Cersei was not going to marry the second son of Lord Stark. Besides we know for a fact that Cersei was being saved for a Targaryen, not Elbert, not anyone else but Viserys or Rhaegar.

 

Their father had summoned Cersei to court when she was twelve, hoping to make her a royal marriage. He refused every offer for her hand, preferring to keep her with him in the Tower of the Hand while she grew older and more womanly and ever more beautiful. No doubt he was waiting for Prince Viserys to mature, or perhaps for Rhaegar’s wife to die in childbed. Elia of Dorne was never the healthiest of women.

 

Quote

Robert has been fostered in the Vale and he is counseled by Maester Cressen. He is schooled to be part of Rickard's plans. Of interest here is we know Robert doesn't visit the North until he does so with Cersei, so when and where does he meet and fall in love with Lyanna? Does Rickard send his daughter to visit the Vale? Or does this infatuation of Robert's only from stories Ned tells his friends?

I doubt that he is schooled to be part of Rickard's plans, Robert doesn't seem to have any problem whatsoever with the Targs until Rhaegar screwed it up twice. We don't really know how he becomes smitten but Martin said that Ned had something to do with it.

Regardless, isn't it strange that all of this people hatched this huge plot and no one even hints it??

 

 

Quote

The question isn't that Hoster was trying to get rid of the Baratheons, but rather was he considering trying to use his son's marriage to try and help secure Robert's throne post rebellion.

It seems that the question varies regarding the narrative one wants to believe. 

Was Tywin considering trying to use his son's marriage to Lysa and his daughter's marriage to the Targaryens to try and help secure Aerys's throne post craziness??

After all, Targs, Starks, Baratheons, Tullys and Lannisters would be one big family.

Quote

We will have to disagree about Tyrion. I don't think Tywin was ever really seriously trying to find a suitable marriage for Tyrion. Perhaps if some great deal happened, but my view is that the last thing Tywin wants is for have children that could inherit Casterly Rock. The loathing Tywin has for Tyrion is clearly shown in our story.

I don't think there could be ever a suitable marriage for Tyrion and we have no reasons to not believe his story, he even mentions the Florent Robert deflowered and her fate. Tywin loaths Tyrion but he is still a political tool, if he wanted him weak forever, he would not have given him Sansa and the North.

 

Quote

Any Targaryen who didn't see the marriages of his High Lords to each other as a threat to their oaths of fealty to the crown would be absurdly incompetent in the politics of the game of thrones. The Targaryens did try peaceful options to stop these marriage including taking Jaime into the Kingsguard and Rhaegar's actions with Lyanna at Harrenhal announcing his de facto opposition to Robert's upcoming marriage to Lyanna. The response was to go ahead with the marriages. Was there other peaceful options to handle Brandon and his companion's actions in the Red Keep? Absolutely, but the Mad King liked fire and blood as his tools and he almost eliminated his rivals with his actions. Cruel as those actions were. Perhaps, he took his lessons from Tywin.

Any Targ who would have not see threats in those marriages would still sit on the Iron Throne.

They didn't really try peaceful options, they tried humiliating passive aggresive ones, there were other ways if they were so worried, showering honors to their alledged foes and trying to keep their children close to the throne.

He didn't eliminate his rivals with his actions, he killed Rickard and Brandon and pissed off half the Realm, Jon Arryn, Ned and Robert and Hoster were all alive and set to show him why peaceful is always better than  tyranny. He took the wrong lessons from Tywin, Tywin got sure that all his rivals were in one basket to smash them easily.  

[SFDanny]

8 hours ago, Chaircat Meow said:

The question wasn't actually when was Robert chosen but when did he proclaim his intention. Robert making public his aspiration to take the kingship was the only thing Martin dated to around the time of the Trident. 

"Robert proclaimed his intention to take the throne ... around the time of the Trident. Would not elaborate any further. Mentioned Robert's claim being stronger than Eddard Stark's and Jon Arryn's, the leaders of the two other great houses that spearheaded the revolution, due to blood ties to the Targaryen's."

This doesn't mean it wasn't the plan before that.

You are absolutely right it doesn't. It sets the latest boundary of when this decision was made. This is confirmed by Jaime's remarks when Ned finds him sitting on the throne. Jaime knows that the rebels want to place Robert on the throne as their new king - not Ned, not Jon Arryn, not anyone else. Meaning Jaime in all likelihood has heard of or seen the proclamation the rebels make about Robert being the new king before the sack of King's Landing. That is consistent with what Martin remarks tell us.

What set the earliest boundary of when the decision was made is that fact that Ned and Jon Arryn were considered as the new king and rejected because Robert "had a better claim" to the throne. We see this in Robert and Ned's conversation during the Hands tourney.  If Rickard or Brandon were alive and could have been part of that decision it would have been either of their names considered and not Ned's. Which tells us that the earliest that decision could have been made would be when Rickard arrives in the Red Keep to demand his trial by combat. That then is the timeframe of when this decision takes place.

That tells us this decision to put Robert on the Iron Throne was not part of Lord Rickard's plans. It doesn't mean I'm right about what Rickard's plan were for after his alliance was constructed, but it does mean he had not had an agreement to place Robert on the throne as part of constructing those alliances.

What makes me believe that the goal for these alliances is independent kingdoms such as existed before the conquest is partly based on what kind of goal all these High Lords can agree upon as a new order in which they all benefit from the enormous risk they are taking. I can't see Tywin Lannister agreeing to join any coalition that just sets a new king over him. Nor can I see any of the other High Lords accepting him as their new ruler. The question becomes what can unite them in what amounts to treason? I think self-rule is the answer.

It is almost certainly what the North wants. When Martin tells us "the North remembers" he is telling us the North remembers the old ways when they were a kingdom unto themselves. The Greatjon's speech tells us exactly the power and meaning of this goal.

[Willam Stark]

10 hours ago, SFDanny said:

So, Lord Rickard, with some help from other anti-Targ elements begins to build an alliance that could possibly stand against a dragonless Targaryen monarchy.

Where does it comes from ? I mean, Rickard is not the first high lord who tries to build a network of alliances to increase his political influence and prestige, your arguments aren't supported by the text. The Targaryen dynasty didn't harm the North, nor even the "anti-Targ" you're talking about back then, I'm sorry but it just doesn't make any sense. 

1 hour ago, SFDanny said:

What makes me believe that the goal for these alliances is independent kingdoms such as existed before the conquest is partly based on what kind of goal all these High Lords can agree upon as a new order in which they all benefit from the enormous risk they are taking.

If the lords paramounts really wanted to get rid of the Targaryen, they had a great opportunity after the Dance of Dragons, when their dynasty almost collapse, looks like they get used to it. 

1 hour ago, SFDanny said:

When Martin tells us "the North remembers" he is telling us the North remembers the old ways when they were a kingdom unto themselves.

Actually, it is link to the slaughter of the Stark army by the Boltons and Freys, they want revenge.

1 hour ago, SFDanny said:

The Greatjon's speech tells us exactly the power and meaning of this goal.

Different time, different context. Between the network alliance Rickard wanted to build and his speech, a lot of events have happened: murder of Rickard and Brandon, threat on Ned that led to the rebellion, Lannister's attack on the Riverlands and finally Ned's execution by Joffrey "Baratheon". It is the trouble caused by Targaryen and "Baratheon" who led Greatjon and the other North lords to proclaim their independence, it wasn't the case back when Rickard was building his network. 

[Mithras]

Targaryen supremacism and Aerys apologism.

Name a better duo. I'll wait.

[SFDanny]

2 hours ago, Mithras said:

Targaryen supremacism and Aerys apologism.

Name a better duo. I'll wait.

I hope that isn't aimed at me? If so you haven't understood anything I've written. While Aerys was every bit the supremacist you allude to, it does not mean the High Lords of the realm haven't given him their oaths of fealty. Nor that the record of some of them isn't any better than the Mad King. Recognition of different perspectives is the basic necessity of understanding this story. By which I mean, in this case, if one cannot see Aerys's perspective or Rhaegar's perspective then one is hopelessly turned Martin into a root for the Starks narrative. Not a problem to love some characters more than others, but understanding all of them is what Martin wants us, the readers, to do.

Hell, if I had a political choice of who I had to choose that most closely represents my own, I'd only read the Wildlings chapters. Curse the bloody "kneelers!" That's not what this story is about. Step back and read the story from the view of characters one doesn't always like, and I think we get a better view of the world Martin has created. 

[Adam Yozza]

45 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

I hope that isn't aimed at me? If so you haven't understood anything I've written. While Aerys was every bit the supremacist you allude to, it does not mean the High Lords of the realm haven't given him their oaths of fealty. Nor that the record of some of them isn't any better than the Mad King. Recognition of different perspectives is the basic necessity of understanding this story. By which I mean, in this case, if one cannot see Aerys's perspective or Rhaegar's perspective then one is hopelessly turned Martin into a root for the Starks narrative. Not a problem to love some characters more than others, but understanding all of them is what Martin wants us, the readers, to do.

Hell, if I had a political choice of who I had to choose that most closely represents my own, I'd only read the Wildlings chapters. Curse the bloody "kneelers!" That's not what this story is about. Step back and read the story from the view of characters one doesn't always like, and I think we get a better view of the world Martin has created. 

Which is all fine. Except you're applying perspectives that all of the evidence in the story indicates doesn't exist. There is enough evidence that you can come to the conclusion that there was a plot against Aerys. I don't believe it personally but theres enough there that I can understand why some people think that way. There is absolutely nothing to indicate a plot for independence from five LP's and if there was all of those Lords need to be checked for mpd because they u-turned on it sharply right at the moment they could have best implemented it.