The Rebels. Targets of divine retribution.

[Lord Varys]

21 minutes ago, The Young Maester said:

Been a while since a proper Englishman/women sat on the throne. Ive met people that claim descent from Harold godwinson. Which kinda gives them a better claim than the current monarchs. Unless the windsors have godwinson blood.

Harold Godwinson is a rather obscure king, considering he was no blood relation of Edward the Confessor. Back then kings could still come into office by election or acclamation or because they had been declared heirs and whatnot ... but that isn't the basis to consider yourself royal if you are descended from this guy.

The Windsors are descended from the Anglo-Saxon kings by way of Queen Matilda, wife of Henry I, but that's all very obscure.

The various conquerors and obscure people ending up with the English crown did successfully intermarry with the remnants of the previous dynasty. Henry II being the son of Empress Matilda, Henry Tudor (whose royal blood is a joke) marrying Elizabeth York, eldest daughter of Edward IV, James Stuart being a grandson of a sister of Henry VIII, etc.

But if you go by it with a focus on the male line - which decided the dynastic name as well as the country of origin - then the last English monarch was indeed Harold Godwinson.

21 minutes ago, The Young Maester said:

You could treat the Baratheons as a cadet branch of the targaryens. However they obviously don’t have a unique status that makes them higher than the rest of the great lords. The York’s were royal dukes and technically considered 2nd to the king himself. However if they baratheons had a royal status like prince of dragonstone, and were clear favourites for small council positions, it would make it easier for people to accept a Baratheon king.

Yes, they don't have that. The best parallel there isn't the Wars of the Roses - because there the Yorkist pretenders actually do have a better blood claim than the Lancasters - but rather the deposition of Richard II. Henry IV set a similarly bad precedent as Robert did. He did have royal blood, but he wasn't the direct heir (that were the descendants of Lionel of Antwerp, the second son of Edward III) and he seized the throne as a mere earl, not a man who was groomed or expected to rule one day.

Robert seized the throne not as a prince or the king's true heir (like Daemon Blackfyre tried) - he did it as Lord of Storm's End ... and was seen by the people more as this guy than a member of House Targaryen. And he did nothing to turn himself or his dynasty into the new dragons or anything of that sort - which he could have tried to changing his name, his sigil, his house colors, etc.

And to be sure - the Stormlands are a lousy place for a King on the Iron Throne to come from. The Lannisters, Arryns, Starks are all more prestigious than the Durrandon-Baratheons, and the Tullys and Tyrells are also more powerful. We know how Tywin looked down on Robert, and we can assume that the man didn't just do that because Robert sucked as a king, but also because he wasn't really worthy of the throne, never mind his Targaryen blood.

This kind of thing weakens the monarchy because if an unworthy guy sits there, if the throne is open to be seized by the strongest - as Robert also reinforced - then more people than just the royal family could think about seizing it.

And the whole thing of every Baratheon thinking he should be king - and quite a few lords thinking they should be kings of their regions, too - is something that only takes up steam after Robert's death.

With the Lancasters things were fine for a time because Henry V was a really great and successful king, but they imploded with Henry VI. In ASoIaF there is no Henry V and Robert fucks up everything by himself, basically.

21 minutes ago, The Young Maester said:

Only problem with the baratheons is that they would set a precedent in which any great house can usurp the current monarchs. Give it a couple decades and youll see a Lannister, or an Arryn sat on the iron throne.

So far it is still impossible for somebody like Mace to seize the throne. But somebody trying to do it by right of his wife, say, is not all that unlikely. Euron could try to claim the Iron Throne if he marries Cersei and uses her connection to Robert as a pretext. That is also how Harold Godwinson became king of England (his sister Edith had been Edward the Confessor's wife).

But, of course, the fact that people whose blood claim is pretty weak are fighting for the Iron Throne weakens the traditional succession system and it could either lead to a situation where (eventually) every powerful noble house thinks they can be king ... or where the power of the central monarchy erodes.

But, honestly, KL and the Iron Throne are such strong symbols of power that whoever sits on the Iron Throne will never have much difficulty to assert his right to rule over all the Seven Kingdoms ... even if that rule were largely nominal. That seat of power would most likely never erode to 'the king of the Blackwater' or something along those lines.

The collective memory of the person sitting there being the king of them all is not going to go as along as it exists. If KL and the Red Keep and the Iron Throne were destroyed then this political ideology could also slowly disappear, of course.

[Rose of Red Lake]

On 1/18/2021 at 8:30 AM, Canon Claude said:

To the seven hells with House Targaryen, I say. When you strip them down, they’re a bunch of deformed Aryans relying on eugenics to stay in power while their fire burns the world over and over. 

OP is all "Aryen nation will rise again"  

[Rose of Red Lake]

On 1/20/2021 at 6:39 PM, Lord Varys said:

If KL and the Red Keep and the Iron Throne were destroyed then this political ideology could also slowly disappear, of course.

The political ideology of "Look on my works ye mighty and despair"? 

[TheLastWolf]

1 hour ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

OP is all "Aryen nation will rise again"  

ValyARYAN

[Lilac & Gooseberries]

3 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

The political ideology of "Look on my works ye mighty and despair"? 

They seem like beina all "All shall love me and despair".

[Wall Flower]

The rebels had just cause to rise in rebellion against Aerys but they fell off the moral high ground hard by not only condoning the brutal murders of Elia and her children (and the treacherous, brutal sack of the city) but rewarding the perpetrator. Robert's regime abandoned justice and the protection of innocents at the first hurdle. The ultimate failure of the regime came from the decision to condone and reward Tywin Lannister. Not divine justice but maybe authorial justice. The man who condoned the murder of the previous regime's heirs is left with none himself and Tywin Lannister is killed on the privy by his own son. I think there's a reason Tywin makes his entry to the city with his horse shitting in the throne room and his exit from the story with his body smelling to high heaven (or hell in his case).

[SeanF]

4 hours ago, Wall Flower said:

The rebels had just cause to rise in rebellion against Aerys but they fell off the moral high ground hard by not only condoning the brutal murders of Elia and her children (and the treacherous, brutal sack of the city) but rewarding the perpetrator. Robert's regime abandoned justice and the protection of innocents at the first hurdle. The ultimate failure of the regime came from the decision to condone and reward Tywin Lannister. Not divine justice but maybe authorial justice. The man who condoned the murder of the previous regime's heirs is left with none himself and Tywin Lannister is killed on the privy by his own son. I think there's a reason Tywin makes his entry to the city with his horse shitting in the throne room and his exit from the story with his body smelling to high heaven (or hell in his case).

Metaphorically, Tywin was up to his neck in shit, all his life

Unfortunately, other innocents are likely to bear the brunt of revenge for the regime’s original sin.

[Alyn Oakenfist]

11 hours ago, Wall Flower said:

The rebels had just cause to rise in rebellion against Aerys but they fell off the moral high ground hard by not only condoning the brutal murders of Elia and her children (and the treacherous, brutal sack of the city) but rewarding the perpetrator. Robert's regime abandoned justice and the protection of innocents at the first hurdle. The ultimate failure of the regime came from the decision to condone and reward Tywin Lannister. Not divine justice but maybe authorial justice. The man who condoned the murder of the previous regime's heirs is left with none himself and Tywin Lannister is killed on the privy by his own son. I think there's a reason Tywin makes his entry to the city with his horse shitting in the throne room and his exit from the story with his body smelling to high heaven (or hell in his case).

I'd say the first fuck up was making the rebellion about crowning Robert.

Sure Aerys was mad and needed to be removed, while Rhaegar needed to be put on trial to determine if he did rape Lyanna. But Aegon was still only an infant. The war should have been about deposing Aerys and maybe Rhaegar too, not about usurping the crown. It created a very dangerous precedent and the new dynasty had shit legitimacy.

[Lord Varys]

4 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

I'd say the first fuck up was making the rebellion about crowning Robert.

Sure Aerys was mad and needed to be removed, while Rhaegar needed to be put on trial to determine if he did rape Lyanna. But Aegon was still only an infant. The war should have been about deposing Aerys and maybe Rhaegar too, not about usurping the crown. It created a very dangerous precedent and the new dynasty had shit legitimacy.

That is the core problem. Deposing a mad monarch or tyrant is one thing, deposing an entire dynasty is another thing entirely. Especially if it is not just deposing them but murdering all members of that dynasty you can lay your hands on ... even innocent children. And then botching that job by allowing crucial members to escape.

You can compare Robert's Rebellion to the deposition of Maegor - there people chose a replacement who was, effectively, the heir to the throne, anyway, so this wasn't rocking the boat. You can also compare that to the deposition of Edward II (who was replaced by Edward III, his son and rightful heir) whereas Robert's Rebellion is more like the deposition of Richard II where a cousin of the king who wasn't his rightful heir usurped the throne.

But Robert's gang sort of decided shortly before the end of the war that they did not only want to get rid of the Mad King, but also wanted to make Robert the next king. And that went too far.

And then there is their general ruthless/brutal behavior towards women and children which clearly goes way beyond the consensus of what's okay. Even Aegon II treated his nephew Aegon III better than Robert and his allies did and wanted to treat the Targaryen children.

Both things set dangerous precedents, brutalizing the civil wars they were having as well as inviting other people 'to pull a Robert Baratheon' if they feel like it - and Balon and later Renly and Stannis and Robb took the example of Robert to heart.

[Alyn Oakenfist]

2 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

You can also compare that to the deposition of Edward II (who was replaced by Edward III, his son and rightful heir) whereas Robert's Rebellion is more like the deposition of Richard II where a cousin of the king who wasn't his rightful heir usurped the throne.

I'd compare it more to England and the trial of Charles I, where they went overboard. Sure, Charles I was a tyrant that abused his power and that arguably committed treason against his country, and while putting him on trial was a maybe tad overboard, going from there to abolishing the monarchy was just too much, an action which laid the groundwork for another 30 years of instability, coups and civil war until finally the Glorious Revolution put a stop to all of it and created a stable constitutional monarchy.

5 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

And then there is their general ruthless/brutal behavior towards women and children which clearly goes way beyond the consensus of what's okay. Even Aegon II treated his nephew Aegon III better than Robert and his allies did and wanted to treat the Targaryen children.

Yeah, the options for the rebels were: make Shakespeare's Richard the IIIrd look like an angel or create an incredibly legitimate and powerful threat to  your own reign. Both bad options stemming from the decision to crown Robert.

6 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Both things set dangerous precedents, brutalizing the civil wars they were having as well as inviting other people 'to pull a Robert Baratheon' if they feel like it - and Balon and later Renly and Stannis and Robb took the example of Robert to heart.

Yup. The Rebellion shattered legitimacy by blood, legitimacy stemming from the people is as of yet an inexistent concept in Westeros (though that might change with Aegon) leaving only legitimacy by force of arms. Can't see how that could go wrong.

[Lord Varys]

42 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

I'd compare it more to England and the trial of Charles I, where they went overboard. Sure, Charles I was a tyrant that abused his power and that arguably committed treason against his country, and while putting him on trial was a maybe tad overboard, going from there to abolishing the monarchy was just too much, an action which laid the groundwork for another 30 years of instability, coups and civil war until finally the Glorious Revolution put a stop to all of it and created a stable constitutional monarchy.

That would be somewhat more modern, considering Westerosi really have no concept of a constitutional monarchy or other such modernist crap. The way they would deal with a mad monarch is more like going through the king's heir or family (which Rhaegar sort of tried) but open rebellion and revolt isn't the way to do it.

Or if they do it that way then the result can only be more chaos. And basically the War of the Five Kings and everything that follows that is a direct result of Robert's Rebellion.

Although one has also count the Reyne/Tarbeck thing as another ugly precedent at 'justice'. Tywin should have not gotten away with that.

Quote

Yeah, the options for the rebels were: make Shakespeare's Richard the IIIrd look like an angel or create an incredibly legitimate and powerful threat to  your own reign. Both bad options stemming from the decision to crown Robert.

Yes, the better alternative would have been to not proclaim Robert king, to perhaps come to an understanding with Rhaegar, or if that wasn't possible then crown another Targaryen king - and if Tywin still sacked the city then go with Viserys III.

The rebels would set themselves up as the regency government and ensure the new king is properly educated on the causes of the war and eventually married to Robert's or Ned's daughter.

And of course all criminal behavior would have to be punished - Tywin and Jaime would be sent to the Wall or even executed for their crimes, etc.

Quote

Yup. The Rebellion shattered legitimacy by blood, legitimacy stemming from the people is as of yet an inexistent concept in Westeros (though that might change with Aegon) leaving only legitimacy by force of arms. Can't see how that could go wrong.

It didn't completely shatter it, but it strengthened the idea that 'the strongest should rule' and that it is okay to make yourself king if you think you are strong enough to do it.

[Alyn Oakenfist]

1 minute ago, Lord Varys said:

It didn't completely shatter it

Not completely, due to Robert still having some semblance of a claim, but it did shatter the importance of birth order, to the point that Tywin expected Stannis and Renly to rebel even without knowing of the twincest accusation.

[Lord Varys]

29 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Not completely, due to Robert still having some semblance of a claim, but it did shatter the importance of birth order, to the point that Tywin expected Stannis and Renly to rebel even without knowing of the twincest accusation.

Yes, that's right. It created a scenario where every member of the royal family - and even some distant cousins - could reasonably believe they could make a bid for the throne if they had sufficient support. And that's not something that happened in the early days. Not during Maegor's reign, not during the Dance, not during the Blackfyre Rebellions.

The point that Tywin actually expects both of Robert's brothers to rebel - despite the fact that they don't really have a legal pretext for it while he and they (to his knowledge) don't know that Cersei's children might not be Robert's - very much underlines this.

Tywin goes by the assumption that the animosity in the royal family combined with the powerbases Renly and Stannis had and the way how Robert decided to tell the tale of his rise to the throne ('my war hammer is my claim') will make sure that those men won't accept the ascension of a King Joffrey.

And he may have been right there since it isn't clear if Stannis would have accepted Joffrey if he had not believed that he was Jaime's son. In that case he could have used Joff's treatment of Ned as an excuse for a rebellion. Or perhaps only the fact that he was not included in the Joff's regency government.

[Alyn Oakenfist]

1 minute ago, Lord Varys said:

And he may have been right there since it isn't clear if Stannis would have accepted Joffrey if he had not believed that he was Jaime's son. In that case he could have used Joff's treatment of Ned as an excuse for a rebellion. Or perhaps only the fact that he was not included in the Joff's regency government.

As for Renly, he claimed the Throne based on nothing but that he was Robert's brother, despite coming after Stannis in every conceivable way.

I'm not sure what Stannis would have done, given his fixation on laws and duty, had Joff not been a bastard, but the fact Tywin believed he would rebel says it all.

3 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

And that's not something that happened in the early days. Not during Maegor's reign, not during the Dance, not during the Blackfyre Rebellions.

Yup, before Robert's rebellion all claimant had actual good basis for being King, well with the exception of Maegor. Viserys I basically created a perfect storm of a succession crisis, while Aegon IV seemed hell bent on making Daemon heir, from granting him Blackfyre to legitimizing to undermining his heir's legitimacy.

Really, just two succession wars in over 200 years (between Maegor and Robert) shows how strong legitimacy by blood was till Robert came around.

6 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Tywin goes by the assumption that the animosity in the royal family combined with the powerbases Renly and Stannis had and the way how Robert decided to tell the tale of his rise to the throne ('my war hammer is my claim') will make sure that those men won't accept the ascension of a King Joffrey.

Which is true, because birthright matters less and less in Westeros.

[Lord Varys]

5 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

I'm not sure what Stannis would have done, given his fixation on laws and duty, had Joff not been a bastard, but the fact Tywin believed he would rebel says it all.

He really hadn't any *proof* that Joff wasn't Robert's son, so he was acting entirely on 'private beliefs' there. That he was capable of that could indicate he may have found another excuse. Or not. We cannot really say.

5 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Yup, before Robert's rebellion all claimant had actual good basis for being King, well with the exception of Maegor. Viserys I basically created a perfect storm of a succession crisis, while Aegon IV seemed hell bent on making Daemon heir, from granting him Blackfyre to legitimizing to undermining his heir's legitimacy.

Oh, my point was more that no other Targaryen though he or she should be king during Maegor's reign - Alysanne, say, or Maegor's nephew Viserys - and during the Dance the family members all stood by the two claimants - Daemon did not suddenly decide he should be king, and neither did Aemond or Daeron or Jacaerys Velaryon. And none of the great lords tried to pull a Balon or Robb while the dragons were occupied with themselves. I expected something like that to happen during the Dance.

And the bastard dragonriders who tried to be kings were put down immediately, just as the bastard pretenders in KL never stood a chance.

[SeanF]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

That is the core problem. Deposing a mad monarch or tyrant is one thing, deposing an entire dynasty is another thing entirely. Especially if it is not just deposing them but murdering all members of that dynasty you can lay your hands on ... even innocent children. And then botching that job by allowing crucial members to escape.

You can compare Robert's Rebellion to the deposition of Maegor - there people chose a replacement who was, effectively, the heir to the throne, anyway, so this wasn't rocking the boat. You can also compare that to the deposition of Edward II (who was replaced by Edward III, his son and rightful heir) whereas Robert's Rebellion is more like the deposition of Richard II where a cousin of the king who wasn't his rightful heir usurped the throne.

But Robert's gang sort of decided shortly before the end of the war that they did not only want to get rid of the Mad King, but also wanted to make Robert the next king. And that went too far.

And then there is their general ruthless/brutal behavior towards women and children which clearly goes way beyond the consensus of what's okay. Even Aegon II treated his nephew Aegon III better than Robert and his allies did and wanted to treat the Targaryen children.

Both things set dangerous precedents, brutalizing the civil wars they were having as well as inviting other people 'to pull a Robert Baratheon' if they feel like it - and Balon and later Renly and Stannis and Robb took the example of Robert to heart.

IMHO, I can only view the rebels as 55% or so justified.  Aerys’ behaviour was foul, but so was that of Tywin, Robert, and Hoster.

[Alyn Oakenfist]

8 minutes ago, SeanF said:

IMHO, I can only view the rebels as 55% or so justified.  Aerys’ behaviour was foul, but so was that of Tywin, Robert, and Hoster.

The way I see it, the rebellion was justified, but it's eventual goals and results were not.

[Lord Varys]

3 minutes ago, SeanF said:

IMHO, I can only view the rebels as 55% or so justified.  Aerys’ behaviour was foul, but so was that of Tywin, Robert, and Hoster.

In the end, yes, my point is that Jon, Ned, and Robert definitely had a right to defend themselves and each other. Jon's refusal to just execute Ned and Robert was justified, as was their decision to rise in revolt after that thing.

I'd say things sort of change after Stoney Sept - at that point the rebels should have tried end the war and get everybody on board with a forced abdication/deposition of the Mad King ... especially Rhaegar. They could have invited everybody to a Great Council, putting pressure on Rhaegar to show up there and turn openly against his father. As well as trying get neutal lords like the Westermen and some of the loyalists on board. If Robert and Rhaegar had formed a pact then Aerys II's support among the Targaryen loyalists would have eroded very quickly, one imagines.

The part of the Rebellion that's not really justified is Robert's irrational hatred of Rhaegar and his clear unwillingness to forgive him or work with him against his father.

And, of course, everything that happens after the Trident, basically.

[Loose Bolt]

Would the Faith see wars as larger Trials of 7 ? 

Or a person/house who wins a war has support of gods when a person/house who loses that is wrong.

[SeanF]

4 minutes ago, Loose Bolt said:

Would the Faith see wars as larger Trials of 7 ? 

Or a person/house who wins a war has support of gods when a person/house who loses that is wrong.

Perhaps surprisingly, No.  The Mandate of Heaven/Divine Right are not arguments that seem to get advanced in this world.