Why didn't the Baratheons offer mercy to the Targaryens?

[Ser Leftwich]

A negative cannot be proven via the text, therefore this thread is pointless.

[Lion of the West]

I suppose that Robert and his allies intended to be the new royal House and not just a stopgap between two periods of Targaryen rule.

If the rebels had wanted to make the Targaryens survive they wouldn't have crowned Robert but made Jon Arryn or someone the regent for the next presumptive Targaryen king. But since the rebels were not idiots they knew the rules of the game after they raised their rebellion.

[Moiraine Sedai]

On 11/7/2020 at 11:55 AM, The Young Maester said:

We agree that they should never have been killed in the first place. But having aegon and rhaenys killed was a necessity. Robert can’t rule whilst he has the son and daughter of rhaegar alive. Kill all the targaryens and your rule is solidified. Leave some alive and your heirs and grandsons will be fighting endless wars against Targaryen claimants (kinda like the blackfyre wars). 

By that justification, should Daenerys or Aegon take the kingdom, they have the right to kill Tommen, Myrcella, Shireen, and Stannis.  Might as well kill Gendry too.  It does make sense.  I would counsel them to do so.  

[The Young Maester]

21 minutes ago, Moiraine Sedai said:

By that justification, should Daenerys or Aegon take the kingdom, they have the right to kill Tommen, Myrcella, Shireen, and Stannis.  Might as well kill Gendry too.  It does make sense.  I would counsel them to do so.  

Well yeah thats how it works, unless tommen and myrcella are declared illegitimate, and also if stannis renounces his claim (which he won’t).

Although now one knows about gendry, so its pointless to kill him.